De Niro pulls his anti-vaxxer film and explains why

March 27, 2016 • 1:00 pm

As Greg and I posted yesterday, Robert De Niro pushed to have Andrew Wakefield’s new film, ““Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe,” included in the Tribeca Film Festival. He and his wife have an autistic child, which might explain why he was so gung-ho on showing a film that paints Wakefield as a hero and the medical establishment as engaged in a massive coverup. Apparently De Niro wasn’t aware of Wakefield’s fraudulent studies trying to connect autism with the MMR vaccine, or of his subsequent disgrace and loss of his medical license.

Greg noted yesterday that the Festival had pulled the film, but today’s New York Times gives a bit more information. You can read the article, but here’s De Niro’s take:

In a statement, Robert De Niro, a founder of the festival, wrote: “My intent in screening this film was to provide an opportunity for conversation around an issue that is deeply personal to me and my family. But after reviewing it over the past few days with the Tribeca Film Festival team and others from the scientific community, we do not believe it contributes to or furthers the discussion I had hoped for.”

Well, at least he showed some respect for science. But truly, I have mixed feelings about pulling a film already scheduled, as it smacks of “no-platforming”.  On the other hand, showing the film is potentially dangerous, especially if there’s no “anti-film” or discussion to counteract it.  On balance, I suppose, I would have shown Wakefield’s film and followed it with a talk by a pro-vaccination opponent of Wakefield, and an accurate history of the man’s duplicity.

But perhaps readers feel otherwise. Weigh in below. You can read more about this at the Times link above.

h/t: Bryan

92 thoughts on “De Niro pulls his anti-vaxxer film and explains why”

  2. I feel that having scheduled the film it should have been shown, and I like your suggestion of then following it with a talk that would have exposed Wakefield’s fraud. I am autistic myself and contribute regularly to genuine research into autistic spectrum conditions, and to attempting to improve understanding of these conditions generally. On Friday 15th April I will helping to run a Positive Autism Awareness Conference put on by the West Norfolk branch of the National Autistic Society and putting on a display of my photographs. Please check out aspiblog.wordpress.com.

    1. I’m inclined to agree. We do not get to complain about no-platform when we don’t like it, then support it when we do. “But we’re right” is not an excuse.

      Still, Wakefield is factually wrong. Whereas most of the regressive left oppose people for disagreeing with them on subjective issues. In this case, “We’re right” is backed up demonstrable, testable and provable scientific evidence. That’s not the case for any side in social justice issues.

      However, I think on net it’s best to keep it there. A standard needs to be upheld now more than ever, and we should try to set examples of counter-speech, rather than denial of speech, wherever we can.

  4. The film perpetuates a medical fraud by a charlatan. The festival made the right decision by withdrawing it. The principle is no different than when a scholarly journal retracts a previously published article that is later revealed as bogus. With so much woo being published in the health area, it would have been unconscionable for the festival to contribute to this by showing a film whose message could negatively impact so many lives. This isn’t a free speech issue.

    2. This isn’t a free speech issue.

      Right, it an issue of someone (Wakefield) maliciously lying and fabricating results so he could sell his brand of snake oil, and causing the deaths of many people because he scared people into refusing vaccination. He should be charged with negligence leading to wrongful death.

    3. Yup.
      I think that after watching a film that uses appeals to emotion to make a point, most people wouldn’t be interested in listening to what a pro-vaccine scientist has to say.

    6. It is very unlike a retraction. You can only retract what you have already put out. This stops it being put out in the first place. It is JAC’s suggestion which is like a retraction.

      1. Fair, maybe not exactly a retraction: rather more like a rejection by the editor based on peer review. Screening here may be less of a stamp of approval than publication in a medical journal, but perhaps just as or even more dangerous and unethical due to the broader audience.

    7. Agreed. I don’t think a private film festival has to screen every movie they initially book on “free speech” grounds. They aren’t a university. They express editorial discretion as part of their job, and in this case showed that discretion later in the process.

      Keeping with your journal analogy, this would be like a paper that failed peer review after an editor with a strong personal bias had initially promoted it. And so was prematurely announced but never published.

  5. Essentially I think as you do that some issues simply don’t have two sides. However, in this situation, I think a case can be made that “free speech” does not apply when the person is saying things that are harmful or quite possibly fatal to others. I guess you wouldn’t want to elect me as dictator.

  6. I think it was the right decision in these circumstances to pull the film. De Niro said clearly that he made a mistake, explained exactly what he got wrong, and that the film was deceitful and deliberately misleading. I think that is different to removing a film (or speaker) simply because people disagree.

    Given the level of proven deceit in this case, and the degree of danger, this is a sensible way of dealing with the issue.

  7. DeNiro did the right thing. When he became more informed, he acted on the information he received. Kudos.

    Best to pull the film. It removes the PR from forever being able to brag about the fact it was shown at the festival. And, from here on out, every time the film is referred to, it will be mentioned that the film was pulled.

    And, with DeNiro’s name attached to decision, it makes the decision to cancel the film all that more noteworthy and memorable.

    Wakefield will have a much harded time pulling the wool over people’s eyes with this film after this.

    Yes, yes, I know there will be cries of censorship and persecution, but now there will always be a reason attached to why this film was not acceptable.

  8. Way to go, ‘Bobby Milk’ (De Niro’s childhood nickname because of his pallor)!

    Here’s to his looking for other films that are accurate about what we know at present about autism which could be shown at future festivals.

  9. I agree with PCC on this one. How else do people get educated on the issue and this was an excellent opportunity to do so. However, I am just as sure that De Niro would not think of it and if he did, would not do it. No-platforming is the no-guts way out. It is no better than the schools.

    1. How else do people get educated on the issue and this was an excellent opportunity to do so.

      No, people get educated on the issue by getting educated on the issue. After people get educated, the film might be useful in helping them to understand what the public health community is up against. We don’t mean to show Triumph of Will to people with no knowledge of the Holocaust.

      1. That would seem to have the same logic as Nancy Regan’s aids and sex policy, just say no.

        “people get educated on the issue by getting educated on the issue.”

        1. That’s a false comparison. Ken Pidcock said that to educate people on the Holocaust you don’t need to show them Triumph of the Will but the flip side to that is emphatically not that you simply say ‘the Holocaust was a bad thing – just take my word for it’. There is all manner of information you can give people to get them to understand what happened during the Holocaust and how and why it did.
          By the same token there are plenty of ways you can inform people about the risks and benefits of vaccination without showing them a film based on the views of a discredited researcher.

        1. Yeah. The policy of her husband’s administration was, for seven of the eight years he was in office, to maintain silence on the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

    2. If they’re looking for excellent opportunities to educate people, they should seek out excellent educational materials to do it with. Wakefield’s self-serving puff piece is hardly that.

      1. That’s very nice in a perfect world but not the place most of us live. The people who believe this stuff don’t seek out excellent educational material. They need to see the scam and and the charlatan straight on and then shredded with the facts.

        1. “The people who believe this stuff don’t seek out excellent educational material.”

          All the more reason not to present fraud and pseudoscience as if it had some educational value.

  10. If the film was merely dubious, I would share the reservations about pulling it. Rather than just having a talk afterwards though, I would bracket the film with two halves of the talk.

    But when a film crosses into outright fraud, then I think that withdrawing it completely is correct.

  11. First, De Niro is maligned for showing Wakefield’s deceptive film. Then, De Niro is maligned for NOT showing the film. Can the poor man do anything right?! I admire him for reevaluating the situation and owning up to his mistake.

    Autism has been with us for much too long. People wanting to know about it can, or could have done, research on their own at any time without having it spoon-fed to them at a film festival in a questionable movie. We are responsible for our own learning. Don’t blame De Niro for our laziness.

    2. I agree with you, except for “Autism has been with us for much too long.” I think that autism has been with humanity before it became humanity proper, and will stay, like e.g. Down syndrome.

  12. “I would have shown Wakefield’s film and followed it with a talk by a pro-vaccination opponent of Wakefield, and an accurate history of the man’s duplicity.”

    I fear that if it had been done that way a number of people would have left the theater with a he said she said perception.

    1. It’s possible, and I don’t feel that strongly about this case as I would about other political issues, for Wakefield’s assertions were discredited. But would you also do the same with a film about Holocaust denialism? That, too, has been discredited.

    2. If I were the festival director, I’d be inclined to try to follow your suggestion, to avoid the appearance of any type of cover-up or information suppression.

      But we should keep in mind that a private film festival such as this is a very selective, limited forum for a particular type of presentation. Since it’s a private entity, of course, the First Amendment doesn’t apply. Moreover, a festival such as this hasn’t undertaken even a private commitment to present all sides of any issue or even to perform any type of general educational function (except, perhaps, as it relates to the aesthetics of cinema).

  13. I would have liked the film to be shown as an example of the duplicity of the charlatan Wakefield. An announcement should have been made about what Wakefield did and how science and journalism exposed him, why this is a good thing and what real science is.

    1. I agree!

      Some debating points:

      1. Did De Niro actually say he is now more informed and that is why he is pulling the film? I just wonder about that. He could be quite rightly afraid of the court case that Monsanto would throw his way – and his career.

      2. Wakefield is suing The Lancet, the journal which originally said he is a charlatan. The last word has not yet been said. (Remember Professor Seralino won his court case, although the media hasn’t covered this much.)

      3. No one is an “anti-vaxxer” in general. It’s the mercury in the vaccines that are the issue – and it is only there to increase shelf life. The stuff is poison and vaccines didn’t used to have mercury. A legal analysis: http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=12072

      4. Idem for GMOs – it’s the glyphosate that’s the problem. As I am sure you all know, WHO recently made a statement on this. WHO is not some off-the-wall, unscientific organization.

      5. France, listed as number 1 for health care (and healthy people) does not make use of massive vaccinations. There have apparently been swine flus and bird flus – and vaccines developed to combat them and even made obligatory in some places, but these flus were never epidemic and in France we didn’t have these flus at all. So why should we get vaccinated? A vaccine for every time a drug company decides there is a dangerous virus? That is clearly open to abuse. Why not concentrate on having a healthy immune system instead of thinking there is a magic shot that will take care of it for you?

      6. I wish pro-vaxxers would actually debate by citing some studies that answer the issues. On mercury (and glyophate) for starters. Russia is outright refusing both (link sent yesterday).

      7. OF COURSE the film should have been shown instead of been censored. How can we at the same time condemn snowflake students at universities across the USA for not being open to debate?

  14. In general, the “no platforming” reaction seems to be directed towards views and positions which people find morally abhorrent. This situation is a simpler matter of fraud, of invented facts. It’s not a live controversy. It’s only interesting for understanding the roots of a conspiracy.

    As I once tried to explain to a friend of mine who dismissed a scientific criticism of water woo with “well, opinions differ:”

    “No — chemistry is not an opinion.”

    1. But is corporate science always Science that works for the good of humanity? Remember that tobacco companies got scientists and doctors to endorse cigarettes – yes, they’re actually good for your health! “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarettes”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI

      Arguments solely from authority that are empty of reasoning and cite no studies (on mercury & glyphosates for starters) went out with the Enlightment. It was the Church that used these types of arguments: “we know because we are the authorities – you must believe us because we say so”.

      1. “Arguments solely from authority that are [b]empty of reasoning and cite no studies[/b] […] went out with the Enlightment.”

        Saying that right after you cited YouTube in a Poisoning The Well argument directly above. Well done. 😀

        1. Mercury & glyphosates are known poisons – I don’t think anyone is disputing this. There are no long-term studies on the safety of vaccines containing mercury. If there are, please correct me and provide the links. At the very least we should take the position of wait-and-hold.

          And I did cite the WHO study, which you are certainly aware of: glyphosates cause cancer. Just like tobacco…

          1. “There are no long-term studies on the safety of vaccines containing mercury. If there are, please correct me and provide the links.”

            Now you’re playing the old shifting the burden of proof game. You say vaccines are dangerous, you have to provide the evidence.

            “And I did cite the WHO study, which you are certainly aware of: glyphosates cause cancer. Just like tobacco…”

            a) You did not cite any studies.

            b) Randomly equalizing different contexts is the logical fallacy False Equivalence.

      2. My understanding is that scientists as a whole did not believe that tobacco was harmless: it was a narrow subsection of scientists directly employed by tobacco companies who came out with poorly done studies not accepted by the mainstream (though they may have been accepted by the general public.) The same situation does not apply to vaccine research, which is widespread. In this case, it is a narrow subsection of scientists with an obvious ax to grind or conflict of interest going against the larger consensus.

        The consensus is the reason why this is not just an “argument from authority.” The authority being invoked here is not what the scientists say; the authority being invoked is the very process and method of science itself. When the majority of experts agree, those who dissent must make their case to these experts, following the rigorous rules all scientific claims must follow. Take your cherished belief to your harshest critics and over time truth will out: they’re better at catching flaws than you are.

        Going right to the public instead is a red flag that we’re dealing with crankery. The idea that the vast majority of scientists are somehow closed to good, solid discoveries — not just initially, but for a long term and with little to gain and much to lose — is ludicrous anti-science conspiracy-mongering. That’s not how science works, and it’s not how scientists behave. Once something looks wrong, they’re all over that like ticks.

        1. I would like to believe you. But where are the long-term studies that we could consult? That would really put an end to all anti-vaxxer arguments in a truly scientific manner. Contrary to what you say, not all serious scientists follow the – I’m sorry but it’s true – orthodox line. Professor Seralino was sued by Monsanto but won his case: glyphosates do cause cancer. The WHO also agrees with him based on their own independent studies. Wakefield is suing The Lancet – we’ll have to wait and see what the court rules about whether he is a crankpot or whether he has been slandered. It’s not such a black-and-white issue as you claim.

  15. As a young doctor and someone who wishes to specialise in microbiology, I think Wakefield should be charged with crimes against humanity or some such.
    Parents failing to vaccinate their kids are on the rise here and it’s a blow to my guts every time I read in the journal of a kid that he/she is unvaccinated.
    Wakefield is a large reason for why people are failing to vaccinate their kids these days. Though the blame can be shared with Rudolf Steiner.
    De niro is certainly allowed to make whatever movies he wish, but on issues like this, it’s important to show the facts instead of presenting the issue of vaccinations as just opinions.

    So I agree with Diana that it could be done properly if it exposed Wakefield for the fraud he is.

  16. For arguments’ sake, the best case I can make for the no-platforming is that this one time it attempts to stop showing a film to a wide audience that attempts to enhance the credibility of a movement that goddamm kills people. Even showing the movie alongside other documentaries that argue the case for vaccination is not enough over such a grave matter. Lots of people will not see the other movies.
    There, I said it. Feel free to rebut.

    1. Agreed. The only sensitivities being hurt here belong to those who don’t have the wit to know that they do real harm. The information as well as the misinformation is all out there. Platforming Wakefield achieves nothing for anyone other than Wakefield and the antivax lunatics. The platform is the message. The platform is the success.

      Di Niro made a big mistake but has recognised it in time to prevent causing physical harm to others – and to his own and his festival’s reputation.

  17. I am happy it was pulled. Unless paired with correct scientific information, this propaganda film poses imminent danger to children’s lives.

  18. Whilst I share the hesitation about the perception of “no-platforming”, the alternative proposal (allowing the film to go ahead followed by a pro-vaccination opponent of Wakefield, and an accurate history of the man’s duplicity could be as harmful, because it might give the impression to some that there is an acual debate on the issue and that by having a discussion, that the two sides carry equal weight.

    I don’t think this is a free speech issue. Free speech gives you the right to say things freely (but even then it’s conditional – you don’t have the right to freely advocate violence against another for example). But the right to free speech does not mean that anyone else has the obligation to give you a platform to air that speech. This is even more true when what your saying is potentially harmful.

  19. De Niro has an child with autism and didn’t know about the controversy regarding Wakefield? I call bullshit.

      1. Just a little? Damn, that wasn’t my intention.
        Sarcasm does not play well on the interwebs

          2. Me 2.

            If Raging Bull is the head, Goodfellas and Taxi Driver are the shoulders, and the rest of the Scorsese oeuvre is arrayed about them.

    2. I, too, find it disturbing that Mr. De Niro was so easily brought around “after reviewing it over the past few days with the Tribeca Film Festival team and others from the scientific community”.

      He has an autistic child and was not able to research the current scientific knowlegde about autism, but instead promoted a fallacious film by a well-known fraudster?

      Let’s hope that he learned from this and do more research before promoting anything.

      1. I too have an autistic child. He was diagnosed 11 or 12 years ago and I heard about Wakefield and his dubious research early in my autism journey.

  20. If a pharmaceutical corporation decided to run a long-term study on the safety of its vaccines, would you volunteer – knowing its vaccines are laced with mercury? That way, we might learn which individuals are “overly-sensitive” to mercury and that would be valuable information. It’s odd that such studies have not been conducted – given the outrageous objections of anti-vaxxers.

  21. “There are no long-term studies on the safety of vaccines containing mercury. If there are, please correct me and provide the links.”

    Now you’re playing the old shifting the burden of proof game. You say vaccines are dangerous, you have to provide the evidence.

    “And I did cite the WHO study, which you are certainly aware of: glyphosates cause cancer. Just like tobacco…”

    a) You did not cite any studies.

    b) Randomly equalizing different contexts is the logical fallacy False Equivalence.

      1. First, you have to prove that vaccines are dangerous in the first place. After doing that, you can go on and verify possible causes, e.g. mercury and glyphosates. Only after that, you can think of further steps to solve the problem.

        Since you didn’t provide any evidence even after prompted to do so, but betook yourself to arguing about unrelated things, you should contemplate if your conviction is as well-grounded as you think it is.

        1. You’re saying I have to prove mercury is a poison? The ethical onus is quite squarely on the pharmaceutical manufacturers of vaccines to assure the public that the mercury in vaccines will not harm anyone, especially infants. Why can’t they just leave out the mercury? Because that would mean shorter shelf life and less profits?

          3. “You’re saying I have to prove mercury is a poison?”

            No, I didn’t. Read my post again.

            I’m not playing your game of deviation.

  22. Were I in charge, I’d pull it. There’s no reason to give broad circulation to a known fraud who has the chance to possibly influence more people. The festival is well respected and gives Wakefield credibility being associated with it.

    It’s true Wakefield could say the establishment is against him, but I think that’s more likely just to reinforce the loons he already has supporting him.

    1. Whatever could be motivating whistleblowers then?
      CDC whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson, confessed to taking part in a massive scientific coverup to conceal the links between vaccines and autism. Google it. How do you explain this? For my part, I am not an anti-vaxxer, but an anti-mercury in vaccines-er until honest, long-term testing has been carried out.

      1. Are you serious? The man saved some studies he claims were shredded and then conveniently couldn’t find any information he claimed was in there. The studies that were allegedly discarded showed no link between autism and vaccines and he hasn’t provided any documentation showing otherwise. First you say you’re anti-mercury and then you pull out unsupported claims from charlatans saying that vaccines are linked to autism.

        I believe you’ve now tipped your hand.

        1. Then why would Congress even listen to him? Or not issue a statement that it was all a hoax? Why would a whistleblower reveal something untrue, thereby laying his career on the line? Where are you getting your information from? The vaccine manufacturers? If it were true, it would of course be the (incredibly) perfect answer to people worried by Thompson’s claims. Isn’t this the usual sort of thing that is said about whistleblowers by people opposed to them?

          1. In reply to ChrisBuckley and Wunold:

            Whistleblower Thompson is disputing precisely the claims made in the link CB sent about the innocuousness of mercury in vaccines (which incidentally is obviously not a long-term study). Let’s wait and see how this affair ends.

            As my final post on this discussion, I would just like to remind you that Professor Seralino (of Université de Caens) won the lawsuit Monsanto threw his way. People in the scientific field in favor of Roundup-Ready GMOs made very similar arguments as those you are making here in favor of vaccines; namely, that studies showed absolute harmlessness. Seralino ran his tests over a longer period of time than Monsanto. Monsanto stopped just short of when rats started to develop cancer. Seralino’s study proves glyphosates do cause cancer. WHO takes the same viewpoint. This is an analogy to the vaccine debate.

          2. You mean Gilles-Éric Séralini whose paper was retracted a year after publication?

            Ask yourself why all you do is mentioning single individuals whose claims and studies (if any) are widely criticized and retracted, instead of simply providing the sound evidence for your position you are so adamant of.

            Tired of this I am know. Please report back when you have sound evidence accepted by a plurality of the scientific community.

          3. Yep, Professor Seralini who won the lawsuit with Monsanto. That’s the one – WHO takes the same position: glyphosates cause cancer.

            But, tell me, what would it take for you to admit that more testing has to be done on mercury-containing vaccines? Exactly what, in the terms of Karl Popper, would make your vaccines-are-absolutely-safe theory falsifiable? 10,000 children vaccinated on the same day, all developing autism within the week? Tell me. If it’s not falsifiable, it’s not Science (but corporate science it most definitely is).

            By the way, check out the FDA-Tripedia information sheet on the FDA website: “Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, AUTISM, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea.”

            Guess that settles that.

          4. Yup, it sure does. A parent reported their kid had autism after they had vaccines. You’ve found the smoking gun!

            As I said before, you’ve tipped your hand, we called your bluff, everyone left the table and you’re still here insisting your empty hand won.

          5. “Yep, Professor Seralini who won the lawsuit with Monsanto. That’s the one – WHO takes the same position: glyphosates cause cancer.”

            Both of which you still haven’t cited sufficiently nor shown to say anything about vaccines.

            “By the way, check out the FDA-Tripedia information sheet on the FDA website”

            You can’t expect from your audience to search for the vague references you make regularly. Link, please.

            “But, tell me, what would it take for you to admit that more testing has to be done on mercury-containing vaccines?”

            Did you notice that I didn’t make any claims in the matter? I only criticised the fallacies in your reasoning, your reluctance (or inability?) to give any sound evidence for your case even on demand, and your tendency to invoke other topics without showing any causal connection to your claims about vaccination.

            I don’t address the other side of the discussion in a similar manner because there is an abundance of easily found evidence backing their position, and they’re willing and able to produce it as required.

            But lest you think I’m dodging the question: If my views conflict with logic, math, or science, I change my views.

            That said, what would it take for you to accept the existing studies and reviews that don’t show any connection between vaccination or mercury and autism?

    1. Goodness to Ceiling Cat! Is it beyond your capacity to read even one sentence past your quote mine? I’ll do you a favor and quote it for you: “Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine.”

      Continuing my poker analogy, I only came back to the table because it’s Friday Happy Hour and at this point, 6 beers in, I find this somewhat entertaining. I’ll refrain from posting anymore before we find ourselves in violation of Da Roolz.

      Now, I shall gracefully bow out with a quote from Hitchens, relevant to my current state: “Alcohol makes other people less tedious, and food less bland, and can help provide what the Greeks called entheos, or the slight buzz of inspiration when reading or writing. The only worthwhile miracle in the New Testament -​- the transmutation of water into wine during the wedding at Cana –​ is a tribute to the persistence of Hellenism in an otherwise austere Judaea.”

      1. I so totally agree with Hitchens! Are you trying to make out I’m a creationist? I’m most certainly not. I’m on this site because I agree with the vast majority of what it is about. Jerry’s book on evolution is the clearest explanation ever.

        But on the subject under discussion, you can’t get around the fact that autism is admitted as a possible consequence of the Tripedia vaccine – this explicitly figures on the information sheet (yes, with a little rider which doesn’t change that fact). Nor that CDC whistleblower Thompson, who was part of the study “proving” autism was not linked to vaccines, has now recanted and revealed that the study was totally fudged. This is the study that pro-vaxxers relied on to show vaccines are safe. It has been seriously called into doubt.

        My only point is that vaccines should not be forced on people who should have a right to use or refuse them. Their bodies are their own and if they do not feel like playing Russian roulette with their children, they should not be forced to. No “knows best” given no one can guarantee there will not be adverse effects so horrible that a child’s life and that of the parents are ruined.

        Vive la France where this freedom is not (yet) denied! You have your beer, I’m going to have champagne with my friends to celebrate being a Canadian with French citizenship.

        1. “you can’t get around the fact that autism is admitted as a possible consequence of the Tripedia vaccine – this explicitly figures on the information sheet (yes, with a little rider which doesn’t change that fact)”

          This “little rider” makes the statement completely irrelevant as it’s solely based on voluntary reports from random people.

          “Nor that CDC whistleblower Thompson, who was part of the study “proving” autism was not linked to vaccines, has now recanted and revealed that the study was totally fudged.”

          Again, you show an inaptitude or unwillingness to echo your own sources correctly without distorting them to your own confirmation bias.

          As for the CDC study being “totally fudged” and “seriously called into doubt”: The paper by former bio engineer Brian Hooker meant to show this was heavily criticized and finally retracted.

          In reaction to Hookers paper, psychologist William Thompson wrote :

          “I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits.”

          So the only paper meant to back up your claim was retracted and the man you call a “whistleblower” later openly endorsed vaccination. Bonus points for no epidemiologists involved in this “exposure.”

          So think about what “facts” your opinions are really based on. You also haven’t answered what it would take for you to accept the many studies against your position, especially as it seems to be based on such weak grounds so far.

          1. To sum up, CDC whistleblower Thompson says the study he participated in was skewed to show no link between autism and mercury-containing vaccines (statement definitely not retracted). Of course he is not anti-vaccine! Don’t try to make him out to be an idiot. It’s the mercury in the vaccines that is the problem – vaccines did not use to contain mercury.

            But the real clincher is the information sheet on the Tripedia vaccine which actually says that autism is a possible adverse effect:
            http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM101580.pdf

            If you don’t have the good grace, you should at least have the common sense to realize that this discussion is over. The vaccine-maker admits its Tripedia vaccine is not safe. Are you now taking on vaccine-maker for saying so? This doesn’t make any sense. Relax and have a good weekend.

          2. As far as I know, there is only Thompson’s statement but he never showed hard evidence (if there is, feel free to show it). That’s far from real whistleblowers who backed their claims with tons of evidence. But nevertheless, you believe this man’s word without question. Where do you get this firm conviction from?

            Apart from that, Thompson’s claim is that he and his collegues “omitted statistically significant information” that “suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism”. But why only in black male infants? Read this analysis on ScienceBlogs about the problems with this kind of arbitrary selection in science, drawing on Brian Hooker’s retracted study that was directly based on Thompson’s assertions.

            Last, but not least the study in question is only one against many that don’t show a correlation between MMR vaccines and autism.

            In the matter of Tripedia you fail to understand that the manufacturers are just listing all effects reported by a random number of laypersons from their customer base. That’s not anywhere near to reliable data. Just read the package insert of any random medicament you are using regularly and chances are that you will see similarly severe symptoms reported.

            Simply put, this “real pincher” of yours is anecdotal evidence with no more significance than, well, anecdotes.

            So still, your allegations are on very shaky ground. That makes the question you keep avoiding about the falsifiability of your strong convictions more interesting than ever. What will shake your beliefs if not an overwhelming number of reviewed studies against motion pictures, retracted “reanalyses” and personal statements?

          4. I feel like Celsus writing against Origen who denied his every reasonable objection, including even the need for further investigation. In a few years, his views were forcibly imposed on the world. And the tactic worked beyond anything the Roman world could have imagined in their wildest nightmares. No exceptions allowed, ever. In the name of “protectionism”, the few are given exorbitant power. Congratulations.

          5. Maybe your arguments and sources just weren’t as conclusive as you thought? Let me try for one last time to summarize why your previous posts aren’t reasonable objections to me yet:

            If Thompson did present evidence, please reference to it. If not, why do you trust his word so much?

            What do you say to the many studies and reviews (I linked to, twice) showing no connection between vaccination and autism?

            Why didn’t you show better evidence than verbal statements, movies, and declarations of anecdotal reports so far?

            And for the umpteenth time, what would it take to persuade you otherwise?

          6. You link to a very one-sided Wikipedia article concerning the safety of vaccines. (Wikipedia articles have been criticized on this site, haven’t they?) It does not mention, for instance, that Wakefield is suing The Lancet for calling his studies fraudulent and taking away his UK license. We will have to wait for the court decision before declaring him wrong. I imagine that the studies used in this article showing the innocuousness of mercury, aluminum and other preservatives (for the sole convenience of the vaccine-maker – they prolong shelf-life) were conducted by corporate scientists or scientists working in a university funded by vaccine-makers, one would expect that their findings would favor of their employer/sponsor.
            This is not a conspiracy theory. It has happened before – and this is what is truly frightening. Here is a list of fines paid by pharmaceutical firms for medication that was dangerous (note Glaxo’s $3 billion criminal and civil fine): and http://projects.propublica.org/graphics/bigpharma. Many people have taken one of the medications on these lists, only to discover that it could (or did) damage them. And yet they were marketed based on studies that showed the medication’s efficaciousness and safety. How scientific is that? The studies were obviously not run correctly or long enough. How on earth can one not wonder if the same thing has happened with vaccine studies? CDC whistleblower Thompson claims this is the case. As you know, he refers to the study in which he participated himself.
            You effectively put all the onus on the people who use the vaccine (obligatory in some states if children are to go to school) to prove that it is not safe. This is not what one should expect of Science that works for the good of humanity. It is a mean, callous ethic. What actually prevents vaccine-makers from just taking the mercury out of vaccines? Or at least making the vaccines available both with and without mercury? Instead of just imposing one and insisting that their studies are correct and any dissenting studies are wrong. (Sorry to be replying to your previous post – your latest one doesn’t have a reply button.)

          7. Anyone can file a complaint, so a pending case says nothing. We still can claim Wakefield false and fraudulent based on other freely available information.

            By the way, if pending cases automatically suspend any further judgement, you shouldn’t believe Wakefield until the court’s decision. But you obviously do believe him. And I somehow doubt you will drop Wakefield if he loses (which I think very likely to happen).

            Your objections against Wikipedia, scientists and the pharma industry are a fallacy called poisoning the well. That’s not how you challenge others’ arguments and evidence, but with better arguments and evidence.

            Regarding your accusation that I’m shifting the burden of proof, there is an abundance of evidence against your claims. So, you have to provide evidence for them.

            Again, you are sidestepping into irrelevant analogies and rhetoric fallacies instead of providing a single piece of sound evidence. Thus, I’m out. Have a nice day.

          8. And what do you make of all the pharmaceuticals forcibly pulled from the market and the incredibly elevated fines (including criminal) imposed on pharma companies for selling harmful medication? Is this somehow “poisoning the well” or rhetorical fallacies? http://projects.propublica.org/graphics/bigpharma. I don’t think so. Most normally constituted people would call it objective fact. Why do you skip over this issue? Is it somehow analogous to the warnings in vaccine information sheets – it doesn’t really count? And in spite of this, you insist that the burden of proof is upon the user of any medication – or vaccines? That’s just irresponsible arrogance.

Comments are closed.