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

a reply to: Annee

No, no, I was being sarcastic (we so need a sarcasm emoji).

Sorry about that...long day at work.

a reply to: tsurfer2000hYour welcome there Lil Bro! Right from the Git go, I aim to please. Have a nice day

a reply to: visitedbythem

Still no answers to tsurfer?

a reply to: ManFromEurope

Don't hold your breathe waiting for any as that is what you get when you have actual facts instead BS.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

We also have this: Obama Grants Immunity to CDC Whistleblower on Measles Vaccine Link to Autism

And as you yourself pointed out (in another comment), we have heard nothing from Thompson himself since his public statement via his lawyer in which he did, in fact, admit to omitting data, and admitted that the omitted data indicated a link between autism in African American boys who received the vaccine before age 36 months. At no time has he retracted his statements.

The silence is not reassuring of anything.... exactly the opposite. There are too many legal ways to silence unpleasant and inconvenient truths.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h

And to further that just a bit...

"Wakefield had his medical license taken away for alleged professional misconduct relating to a now-debunked study on autism and vaccines in 1998."

Am I the only one that thinks this little factoid has the opposite of its intended effect?

No, not at all. There are too many legal means by which people who know too much can be silenced.

Nor is Dr. Wakefield the only professional to lose his livelihood for speaking out about things that shall not be spoken of... a Dr. Squier lost her medical license for testifying against another sacred cow: Shaken Baby Syndrome. (Although both were British, not American).

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h

And to further that just a bit...

"Wakefield had his medical license taken away for alleged professional misconduct relating to a now-debunked study on autism and vaccines in 1998."

Am I the only one that thinks this little factoid has the opposite of its intended effect?

No, not at all. There are too many legal means by which people who know too much can be silenced.

Nor is Dr. Wakefield the only professional to lose his livelihood for speaking out about things that shall not be spoken of... a Dr. Squier lost her medical license for testifying against another sacred cow: Shaken Baby Syndrome. (Although both were British, not American).

I'll think you'll find that Wakefiend has a very profitable livelihood speaking at anti-vax conferences.
And prey tell how he has been "silenced".

He didn't lose his licence for "speaking out" as you put it.
He lost it for medical fraud and child ethics violations.

Prove he didn't.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

yes...to hell with omitting statistically important data.

Real issues are his opinion on vaxxing and whether he was recorded illegally.

And he was not so much lying as in..not telling the truth...right ?

I'm looking forward to watching it. From what I have learned so far, if it's correct is that they use mercury as a preservative and that is a nurotoxin and very bad for living things to even touch it. Of course nobody seemed to know how poisonous it was when I was a kid it was in thermometers and the thermostat. Apparently now its also used as a way to filter tiny amounts of gold out of soils, polluting water and soil in the process. So mercury is bad, it also causes autism and other birth defects. Keeping mercury out of the environment should be a much higher priority globally than it is now. I also read that It's not allowed in vaccines in some european countries and Austrailia.

Apparently its used to keep the vaccine viable without refrigeration and have a vastly extended shelf life, even in hot environments, like Africa. Unfortunately Africa seems to be powerless against the big corporations.

Big companies have a history of ignoring important things for the sake of profits. Personally, I've seen huge fortune 10 IT organisations make the most idiotic descisons at the highest levels to try to save money in one area often such as purchasing enough poweful hardware and disks, only to spend ten times that in labor and lost productivity dealing with the chaos of the shortage. Even where a few 100k in hardware would fix an issue that costs that much a day to repair and babysit the overwhelemed infrastructure. They have the money and pretend they don't, then, turn around a few years later and spend 10s of billions trying to buy out a competitor.

Every engineer in the company, and the high paid consultants they bring in could tell them to do the same fix and the executives just get these blank glazed over looks and disengage or go silent, and don't take action, often out of fear of other higher execs that made the bad descisions in the first place.

My point is, maybe the vaccines just need to have mercury removed and then be refrigerated and expire sooner but big pharm just doesn't pull the trigger on doing it because it would cost an absolute mint.

Ultimately, all costs end up getting passed down to consumers of products. Businesses try to make a percentage of revenue as profits, they don't think in terms of dollars or euros, but percentages. So if costs go up, demand goes down and they end up making less profit % or even a losing %.

Movies like this are great, but if all I have read about it is true, removing the mercury is a good place to start. All the talking is good and people educated with the truth is good too, but unfortunately it will take real action to effect change. Talking isn't enough.

Big phama will need to be forced to do it by lawsuits, protests and even civil disobedience, as is happening already. I hate to say it, but if they are killing people over this, and the justice department is looking the other way, then something at some point will have to give. If our children are autistic or ACDCPDQ and are on behavior drugs, they won't be able to handle the hard highly educated jobs of the future. That should put all kinds of high tech and finacial companies behind getting to the bottom of this soon. They can and should fund the high dollar lawsuits it will take to force vaccines to be changed and well tested. They may even make something in the process. My question is, why aren't they?

Here's a thought.

Supposing what they say in this "documentary" is true (and it isn't) and that African-American boys have a statistically increased chance of getting autism from the MMR and vaccines in general this must mean that there's no stats to show that non African-American boys get it.

You do realise what this means don't you?

Oh, for those who think it's the Mercury, the MMR vaccine has NEVER contained thimerasol (not that thimerasol is Mercury anyway, it's a Mercury salt. Like table salt isn't sodium).
Ever.
In fact ALL of the routine childhood vaccines have not contained any discernible amounts of any Mercury compound for quite a few years now.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

We also have this: Obama Grants Immunity to CDC Whistleblower on Measles Vaccine Link to Autism

And as you yourself pointed out (in another comment), we have heard nothing from Thompson himself since his public statement via his lawyer in which he did, in fact, admit to omitting data, and admitted that the omitted data indicated a link between autism in African American boys who received the vaccine before age 36 months. At no time has he retracted his statements.

The silence is not reassuring of anything.... exactly the opposite. There are too many legal ways to silence unpleasant and inconvenient truths.

If the data was omitted, how did Brian Hooker get his hands on it to perform his "re-analysis"?
Oh yes, that's right, he got it from the study itself which is avaiable to all.

And isn't it strange that Thompson "confessed" this after Hooker published his "re-analysis" of the data and not before?
Hooker's study was retracted from the journal it was published in due to issues of conflict of interest and the questionable validity of its methods.

So no wonder Thopson has been silent since his "confession" as he knows he's been duped and is very in the wrong about it.

a reply to: Pardon?

I'll think you'll find that Wakefiend has a very profitable livelihood speaking at anti-vax conferences.
And prey tell how he has been "silenced".

He didn't lose his licence for "speaking out" as you put it.
He lost it for medical fraud and child ethics violations.

Prove he didn't.

Prove it? Please. We both know that neither of us can know what is in anyone else's heart/mind, so it is impossible to prove the motivations of anyone for any reason. All we can know is what is said, either verbally or written.

But we also both know that there are many legal means by which people can be silenced, including threats of criminal/civil persecution.

Those who have nothing to hide do not hide...

a reply to: Boadicea

I'm sure that, just like in the other thread about DeNiro pulling the film, folks in this thread will claim that it's not censorship, and that it's bad information, and that it's dangerous to the public, and blah blah blah.

Now to read and see if I was right.

Regardless, Mr. Todd is a coward.

Yup, I was pretty much correct. Threads like these end up just being a well-this-link-says versus a well-this-link-says battle, and it's pathetic to watch.

Why can't we all just agree that it's really fishy that someone would say that the local government is basically forcing them not to show a film. That is enough right there to look into, not to have the thread devolve into more white noise about Wakefield and 20-year-old studies.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Pardon?

I'll think you'll find that Wakefiend has a very profitable livelihood speaking at anti-vax conferences.
And prey tell how he has been "silenced".

He didn't lose his licence for "speaking out" as you put it.
He lost it for medical fraud and child ethics violations.

Prove he didn't.

Prove it? Please. We both know that neither of us can know what is in anyone else's heart/mind, so it is impossible to prove the motivations of anyone for any reason. All we can know is what is said, either verbally or written.

But we also both know that there are many legal means by which people can be silenced, including threats of criminal/civil persecution.

Those who have nothing to hide do not hide...

I think when it's documented that Wakefiend was paid over £400,000 by the lawyers trying to sue the vaccine makers and that Wakefiend had patented an alternative to the MMR (called Transfer Factor) with one of the parents of the "autistic" kids in his tiny case series of twelve, a full 9 months prior to lying about the conclusion of said case series in his press conference I think I know exactly what was in his mind.
And it wasn't about helping the kids.

And tell me how he's been silenced please as I can easily view videos of him pretending he was hard done-by.
Seriously, how on earth is that being silenced?

originally posted by: soocrates
I'm looking forward to watching it. From what I have learned so far, if it's correct is that they use mercury as a preservative and that is a nurotoxin and very bad for living things to even touch it.

As I understand it -- and if I'm misunderstanding, I thank anyone who corrects me... and I apologize to those who have tried to educate me about this before -- the type of mercury used in vaccines is ethyl mercury, which is water soluble and does not accummulate in the body. Methyl mercury is the problem, which is not used in vaccines, because it is fat soluble and does accummulate in the body wreaking havoc on the central nervous system.

MERCURY COMPOUNDS

Big companies have a history of ignoring important things for the sake of profits.

Yes, they do. Very important things that can make life a living hell for others. And our congress critters have a history of aiding and abetting corporations in ignoring important things for the sake of campaign contributions and other bennies. It's a very dangerous combination.

My point is, maybe the vaccines just need to have mercury removed and then be refrigerated and expire sooner but big pharm just doesn't pull the trigger on doing it because it would cost an absolute mint.

I suspect you're right... at least to the extent that the current vaccination formulas/schedule need some tweaks to minimize adverse effects, but to do so would mean major profit losses. Maybe it's the mercury. Maybe it's too many vaccinations at the same time, or in too short of a period. Maybe it's a matter of bad timing in combination with normal physiological development. Maybe it's a combination of factors, such as pre-existing high serum levels of lead reacting to the vaccines.

Hence, my intuitive suspicion when anyone and everyone who questions any aspect of vaccines are mocked and ridiculed and insulted and otherwise bullied and shamed. The reality is that nothing is perfect, not even vaccines, and anyone who claims otherwise immediately loses all credibility and raises huge red flags.

All the talking is good and people educated with the truth is good too, but unfortunately it will take real action to effect change. Talking isn't enough.

And inaction... as in refusing to take vaccines or refusing to allow your kids to be vaccinated. (Which, of course, is the reason for mandating forced vaccination. The right to say "no" is our first and primary defense.)

Big phama will need to be forced to do it by lawsuits, protests and even civil disobedience, as is happening already. I hate to say it, but if they are killing people over this, and the justice department is looking the other way, then something at some point will have to give.

Yes, indeed. Too many corporate and political critters believe their own publicity, and don't seem to realize human nature and the survival instinct will rear its ugly head eventually... it's natural law and heaven and earth will pass away before one tittle of the law fails. It won't happen on our timetable, but it will happen, and I sure wouldn't want to be them when it does!

If our children are autistic or ACDCPDQ and are on behavior drugs, they won't be able to handle the hard highly educated jobs of the future. That should put all kinds of high tech and finacial companies behind getting to the bottom of this soon. They can and should fund the high dollar lawsuits it will take to force vaccines to be changed and well tested. They may even make something in the process. My question is, why aren't they?

Excellent point. Sooner or later, these issues can and will be felt in many many ways -- both directly and indirectly. It is in everyone's best interest to resolve these issues sooner rather than later.

a reply to: Pardon?

Supposing what they say in this "documentary" is true (and it isn't) and that African-American boys have a statistically increased chance of getting autism from the MMR and vaccines in general this must mean that there's no stats to show that non African-American boys get it.

You do realise what this means don't you?

Actually, we don't know what stats are out there... or not.

It's entirely possible that there are such correlative stats and we just don't know about them. It's also not just possible, but very probably, that if the AA stats had not been omitted/hidden from public view, that further studies would have been conducted and revealed similar correspondances for other races.

I've also wondered if perhaps the stats for AA boys is indicative of a combination of factors not applicable to other races. For example, were the AA boys in this study from public housing with high lead levels in their water, and/or paint chips/dust, etc?

We don't know and cannot know because too many people with too much power don't want to know and don't want us to know either.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Regardless, Mr. Todd is a coward.

I agree. In fact, I would say he's no better than those political and Big Pharma critters who are putting $$ before people. Or maybe he's just part of a publicity stunt which will reap even bigger $$. I don't know.

Threads like these end up just being a well-this-link-says versus a well-this-link-says battle, and it's pathetic to watch.

Yes, it is. But it's also necessary to understand just what's going on. In the end, everyone's words will have to stand on their own merit... and everyone will have to do their own due diligence. For the most part, I believe most people will look upon the bullying tactics and gross lack of transparency as huge red flags also.

Why can't we all just agree that it's really fishy that someone would say that the local government is basically forcing them not to show a film. That is enough right there to look into, not to have the thread devolve into more white noise about Wakefield and 20-year-old studies.

Exactly! Sometimes it's not just the "what," but the "why" and the "how" as well.

People...

You do realize caller ID can be faked, and anyone can just "pretend" and act like some kind of government official to scare someone, right? I wouldn't believe anyone calling me with threats unless they bothered showing up with badges or sent some kind of letter I could verify with local authorities.

Phone threats are pretty hollow and empty.

I'm suspecting this of being a marketing trick, as now even MORE people will be interested in the "movie they didn't want you to see" -- it's reverse psychology at work folks.

Make something have a false sense of demand by pretending that it's "to true to be released" or "to dangerous" or something. Just watch, this movie will now make a lot more money than if it had just gone the normal route...

Pretty smart marketing move, I must say.

a reply to: Pardon?

This thread is not about Wakefield; this thread is about the efforts to stop a film from being shown to the public. One of many ways that truth can legally be hidden.

Now, you may very well claim that every word in this film is an untruth, and maybe you're right... doesn't matter. If lies can be withheld, so can truth.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
People...

You do realize caller ID can be faked, and anyone can just "pretend" and act like some kind of government official to scare someone, right? I wouldn't believe anyone calling me with threats unless they bothered showing up with badges or sent some kind of letter I could verify with local authorities.

Phone threats are pretty hollow and empty.

I'm suspecting this of being a marketing trick, as now even MORE people will be interested in the "movie they didn't want you to see" -- it's reverse psychology at work folks.

Make something have a false sense of demand by pretending that it's "to true to be released" or "to dangerous" or something. Just watch, this movie will now make a lot more money than if it had just gone the normal route...

Pretty smart marketing move, I must say.

The chairman of the Houston Film Festival would have to be in on it, too. Otherwise, how would the film distributors know he would send such a letter, blatantly telling them why it was being pulled, to share with the internet in a marketing scheme?

And if he was in on it, why even have anyone call, at all? They could just make up the story completely.

And, and...has anyone denied making the call?