SOMETIMES the best way to have your film screened across the country is to have it banned.
Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Controversy made headlines last spring after the Tribeca Film Festival pulled the documentary from its 2016 line-up, saying that other filmmakers had threatened to take their work out of the 15 year-old festival if it were included.
Directed by Andrew Wakefield, the film centers around the charge that findings from a study by the Center for Disease Control were tampered with, thereby suppressing evidence that linked a certain vaccine with autism.
Much of the ensuing publicity focused on discrediting that premise, calling it “pseudoscience” and citing public health officials who have debunked any connection between vaccines and the uptick in autism, which has risen from 1 in 150 children ages 3-17 in 2002 to the current statistic of 1 in 68.
In the critical crosshairs was Wakefield, the British gastroenterologist who co-published a 1998 study in the medical journal The Lancet that suggested the 3-in-1 measles, mumps and rubella vaccine causes autism. The study was retracted in 2010, and Wakefield was stripped of his medical credentials but has continued to advocate for more research in vaccine safety.
After being kicked out of Tribeca, grassroots support has encouraged the producers of Vaxxed to seek out alternative distribution options. Since partnering in June with Gathr.com, a theatrical on-demand service that arranges one-night showings after a certain threshold of reservations has been met, there have been over 570 screenings of Vaxxed booked nationwide.
Two screenings have already been green-lit for Savannah on August 1 and 8, with a third pending for Aug. 22 in Pooler.
Producer Del Bigtree was aware that taking on this controversial subject matter could be “career suicide,” but he felt compelled to make the film and bring it to the public.
“We all thought that this discussion was over, that the vaccine/autism link had been disproven and we could all move on,” he told ABC News World Report before the film was pulled.
“I know that’s what I believed until I heard this new information.”
That new information is a series of recorded phone calls with CDC vaccine scientist Dr. Bill Thompson, who co-authored the MMR safety study that is often referred to by pro-vaccination proponents as hallmark proof. In the calls, Dr. Thompson claims he was present for the destruction of research that proved a “causal relationship” between the MMR vaccine and autism.
“It’s the most compelling evidence of fraud I’ve ever seen,” said Bigtree, a former producer for the daytime TV show “The Doctors.”
“This is not an anti-vaccine movie. It’s about fraud, scientific fraud committed by the CDC.”
Dr. Thompson’s confession raises questions about whether the results of other vaccine studies may also be false. Those who have seen the film believe it presents a powerful case for further investigation.
“People base their belief that vaccines are safe on the fact that the CDC is infallible,” says local children’s health activist Kim Spencer.
“Yet here you have a CDC scientist whose name is on the very study they point to when they say vaccines are safe who’s calling it a fraud.”
While public officials and others vehemently dismiss any link between vaccines and the increase in autism-related disorders, many autism parents maintain that more than just the MMR science is faulty.
Spencer explains that many of those characterized as “anti-vax” are actually seeking more safety studies that focus on multiple vaccines, including the impact of the current immunization schedule.
The CDC recommended in 2016 that American children receive 48 doses of 14 vaccines before the age of 6, more than twice its 1983 recommendations of 22 doses of 7 vaccines. No study has been conducted evaluating the effect of giving up to 8 or 10 vaccines at once, as is often the case in busy pediatric practices.
Proponents hope that the information presented in Vaxxed will confirm the need for vaccine reform.
“Pediatricians, politicians, nurses, anyone who works with children’s health should come out and see it,” says Spencer.
“At least see if what you think you know holds up.”
Audiences are increasing in spite of—or perhaps because of—the controversy surrounding Vaxxed. After it was taken off the Tribeca schedule, festival co-founder and autism parent Robert DeNiro continued to express support for the film.
“I think the movie is something that people should see. I, as a parent with a child who has autism, am concerned,” he told the TODAY show’s Savannah Guthrie and Willie Geist in April.
“I want to know the truth. And I’m not anti-vaccine. I want safe vaccines.”
This article appears in Jul 27 – Aug 2, 2016.
“The Lancet that suggested the 3-in-1 measles, mumps and rubella vaccine causes autism.”
The MSM continues to post incorrect information so as to dissuade people from seeing this film or taking the work of Dr. Wakefield seriously. here are the major conclusions of the Wakefield paper that are being retracted, although their accuracy has not been disputed:
Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 1998; 351: 637-641.
We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue.
If there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome, a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988. Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. A genetic predisposition to autistic-spectrum disorders is suggested by over-representation in boys and a greater concordance rate in monozygotic than in dizygotic twins…
We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in childrenthat may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles,
mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.
As you can read NO where in this abstract or the study that is still online at the Lancet website, does it state that the MMR causes Autism. This was a co-hort study involving 13 researchers, not just Dr. Wakefield.
What did Dr. Wakefield do that was so egregious? He made the recommendation that the measles portion be offered as a SINGLE vaccine, not a combo shot. Merck Pharmaceutical not only holds the patent to the MMR-they hold the worldwide market. If forced to seperate the combo into to singular shots not only do they lose the patent on the measles portion but the mumps portion as well. Merck owns the market with these two vaccine. The World Vaccines Market Is Predicted to Reach $45.1 billion in 2022 and Merck is the biggest money maker. They are not about to lose that money because one man recommend the shots be separated because it was safer for children. (http://www.genengnews(dot)com/insight-and-intelligence/for-struggling-pharma-market-vaccines-offer-path-to-revenue/77900658/)
With all the pharmaceuticals companies blockbuster drugs hitting their patent ceilings with no new drugs in the pipeline, generics being made of their most profitable drugs Vaccines are the sure money makers for pharma. To date there are currently close to 300 new vaccines in the developmental pipeline: http://www.phrma(dot)org/sites/default/files/pdf/Vaccines_2013.pdf.
Vaxxed is not anti-vax, it’s anti-fraud and anti-lies.
Mr. Wakefield (pretty sure he’s not Dr. anymore) is a fraud. He had a financial interest in the “study” he performed and behaved unethically toward the children in the study (only 12 by the way, way too small to draw any conclusions). He worked for anti-MMR attorneys and did not disclose that huge conflict of interest. He was paid 400,000 pounds (approx. $600,000) by them which is hugely unethical. Also, as soon as the study was published he formed a company with a study participant’s parent to push a new single dose vaccine he created. The study was disowned by the 10 of 12 of the other authors.
As to the manufactured controversy about the CDC… Wakefield is desperately trying to save his cash flow from his totally debunked hypothesis that MMR causes autism. It does not. and there is no CDC cover up. There are plenty of evidence based websites out there that quite easily tear this movie to shreds. It is fiction at it’s worst.
This movie is anti-science, anti-vax garbage.
Here is just one site from an autism group: https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2016/03/22/andrew-wakefield-releases-the-trailer-for-his-william-thompson-video-slick-production-and-dishonesty/
Do not believe me…there are tons of well-documented SCIENCE-based sites online that deals with this topic from start to finish. You won’t get that from the anti-vaxxers. It’s all scare tactics and pseudo-science crap.
Anti-vax kills children. Vaccinate your kids.
2tellthe truth: “Mr. Wakefield (pretty sure he’s not Dr. anymore) is a fraud. He had a financial interest in the “study” he performed and behaved unethically toward the children in the study”
This alone tells me you know very little about the whole Wakefield controversy. If the “financial interest” in the study was because you believed that he had some sort of measles vaccine patent, then you don’t really understand the patent at all. If you know the blood product called immunoglobulins, it is there to provide temporary antibody immunity to a specific disease. Wakefield’s patent is very similar to that, but rather than using immunoglobulins, it is supposed to use transfer factors, which is an immune signalling system for the destruction of a specified target using cellular immunity rather than antibody immunity.
Wakefield’s “vaccine” does NOT replace a regular vaccine because it doesn’t teach immunity. As described above, transfer factors it provides a temporary heightened cellular immune response to a specific target, and in this case, it was for measles. The original intent was for the immune system to clear any remaining measles virus left behind by the MMR vaccine, which is what Wakefield postulated was causing these gastrointestinal issues in the children of his case series study.
Therefore, in order for his patent to work, the MMR vaccine must be continued. Why would he patent something that relied on the continual usage of MMR if he was trying to discontinue the use of the vaccine?
2telllthe truth: “he performed and behaved unethically toward the children in the study”
No, he did not. You are referring to the “invasive” tests such as colonoscopy and spinal taps, etc.
What you don’t know is that the physician to perform these tests was Professor Walker-Smith.
Have you ever been to a doctor, only to have to be referred to a specialist who then performed additional tests? This is exactly the scenario here. Wakefield referred the patients to Professor Walker-Smith, who then decides what kind of tests these children would undergo. Walker-Smith performed these tests because, according to the research done by Justice Mitting, he found that there has been measurable benefits to these children.
According to Justice Mitting, a good number of the Lancet children have emerged from Wakefield’s studies. Walker-Smith indiciated that “I can confirm that CHILDREN WOULD HAVE THESE INVESTIGATIONS even if there were no trial. I must make clear that we would not be investigating children without gastrointestinal symptoms”. This means that they would have done these tests regardless of the trial or the study.
You should read more about the ruling before mouthing off your baseless claims:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html
He was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by lawyers that benefitted if the conclusion of his study was slanted a particular way, which surprise, surprise it was. He was retained by them PRIOR to beginning the study which was to discover a “New syndrome” which they could use to SUE. That by definition is unethical. Take a minute…look it up.
He was cited for “callous disregard for the distress and pain the children might suffer.” That is unethical by definition. Look it up.
Screw this I’m not arguing with a “true believer” . doesn’t matter what I say you’ll gallop around the facts to come to your own fairytale ending.
Anyone else? Look at the original investigation by Brian Deer of the Sunday Times of London. Find the facts. don’t listen to me or any one else here. Find out for yourself.
Anti Vax Kills kids…period. Wakefield has blood on his hands. period
2tellthe truth,
You said: “He was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by lawyers that benefitted if the conclusion of his study was slanted a particular way, which surprise, surprise it was.”
When you are acting as a paid medical expert in a litigation case, you DO realize that all medical experts are “paid” for their time, effort, opinion, studies, and expertise to do research and to testify to the courts.
By your definition of financial conflict of interest in which “he was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by lawyers”, you’re essentially telling me that ALL paid medical experts in litigation cases are SUBJECT to bias.
If you want to talk conflict of interest, you don’t even need to look any further than Brian Deer, who worked for the Sunday Times, a media corporation owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also happened to be a non-executive director and member of the corporate responsibility committee at GlaxoSmithKline. Vested interested in taking down Wakefield, under the guise of “investigative journalism”?
Brian Deer’s research was also assisted by Medico-Legal Investigations, a private eye company whose only source of funding is the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry.
What about the CEO of Elsevier Reed the publication that owns the medical journal “The Lancet”, Crispin Davis, who was also another non-executive director of GlaxoSmithKline. Isn’t there some conflict of interest that would have benefitted from seeing Wakefield’s paper retracted?
What about judge Nigel Davis, the judge over the presiding case, who also happened to be the BROTHER of Crispin Davis? Judge Nigel Davis also denied allowing any testimony from any of the Lancet study children and parents.
I mean, you can’t make this stuff up. You want to talk about conflict of interest regarding Wakefield? Then you’ll have to answer the numerous conflicts of interest in the key players that were systematic in taking down Wakefield as well.
You also said: “He was cited for “callous disregard for the distress and pain the children might suffer.””
This is a conclusion that was determined by the General Medical Council, which has no bearing on the actual truth in the case. Did you not read the ruling that exonerated Professor Walker-Smith, who was the actual doctor that PERFORMED the “invasive” tests that the children underwent?
Justice Mitting said this about the GMC’s [the panel’s] charges:
“For the reasons given above, both on general issues and the Lancet paper and in relation to individual children, the panel’s overall conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct was flawed, in two respects: inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion.
…..
The panel’s determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it. …. The end result is that the finding of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure are both quashed. “
So the GMC’s findings were inadequate and superficial reasoning, and WRONG conclusions. You still want to stand by the GMC’s findings?