Robert De Niro Pulls Anti-Vaccine Doc From Tribeca Film Festival

Simon2015

By effectively banning this film it may make it more successful than it otherwise would of been.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/movies/robert-de-niro-pulls-anti-vaccine-documentary-from-tribeca-film-festival.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1

Facing a storm of criticism over its plan to show a documentary about the widely debunked link between vaccines and autism, the Tribeca Film Festival on Saturday pulled the film from its schedule next month.

In a statement, Robert De Niro, a co-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.”

The film, “Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe,” was directed and co-written by Andrew Wakefield, the author of a study that was published in the British medical journal The Lancet and then retracted in 2010. Mr. Wakefield’s medical license was also revoked over his failure to disclose financial conflicts of interest and ethics violations.

Information about the film no longer appears on the festival’s website, but on Friday, the site, tribecafilm.com, did not mention Mr. Wakefield’s revoked license or the 2010 retraction, saying instead that the study “would catapult Wakefield into becoming one of the most controversial figures in the history of medicine.” And on Twitter, Mr. Wakefield described the film as a “whistleblower documentary.”

When the festival’s plan to show the film was made public on Tuesday, filmmakers and medical experts were vocal in their condemnation of it. The documentarian Penny Lane (“Our Nixon”) posted an open letter on Thursday in Filmmaker Magazine telling the festival that the screening “threatens the credibility of not just the other filmmakers in your doc slate, but the field in general.”

Doctors and infectious disease experts also spoke out. “Unless the Tribeca Film Festival plans to definitively unmask Andrew Wakefield, it will be yet another disheartening chapter where a scientific fraud continues to occupy a spotlight,” Dr. Mary Anne Jackson, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, said in an interview on Friday.

As the criticism mounted on Friday, Mr. De Niro defended the film, saying that he and his wife, Grace Hightower, have a child with autism and that “we believe it is critical that all of the issues surrounding the causes of autism be openly discussed and examined.”

A festival spokeswoman said she would have no further comment about what specifically in the film raised concerns for Mr. De Niro after he initially added it to the festival. The film was to have shown just once, on April 24, and was to be followed by a discussion with the director and subjects of the film.

Mark Tapley

I would say it just draws attention to the pìss poor credentials of Andrew Wakefield. Would you consider all the other films the festival is not showing as banned? Do you think this film would have got a wide theatrical release anyway?

Tipperary Fairy

Simon2015 wrote: »

By effectively banning this film it may make it more successful than it otherwise would of been.

That's a good point. And all we need is more people not vaccinating children.

Like sports starts getting done for crimes, and being given higher than usual sentencing, celebrities should be stopped from spouting stuff like this publicly.

bnt

Yeah, we can now expect more conspiracy theories about "Big Pharma" getting to De Niro and "shutting down debate", when all the issues were thoroughly examined ten or more years ago.

Wakefield wasn't some kind of heroic whistleblower, not even in his own mind: the article talks about "financial conflicts of interest", but doesn't explain that had a commercial interest in an "alternative" vaccine and tried to make money by scaring people unnecessarily. He's no longer allowed to practice medicine.

PS: when it comes to autism, there is one factor known to increase the risk: the age of the parents. De Niro's son Elliot was born when he was around 55 and his wife was 42.

kylith

Unfortunately from what I've seen online all this has done is get the usual gangs saying 'They're banning it because it's true! Conspiracy! Afraid of the truth!'

Water John

I am all for openness and alternative opinion. That the essence of how change and progress comes about. But this is just disproved nonsense and dangerous.

steddyeddy

Guys the point about the anti-vaccine debate isn't that Wakefield isn't unqualified. He's very qualified. He studied medicine in Imperial and went to a top private school in the UK.

The point scientists want you to take home is never take someone's word for it nor do you accept an argument from authority i.e he's a doctor. His paper was peer reviewed by scientists too. So don't take a scientist's word for it either.

Research yourself and see where the overwhelming evidence points to.

Water John

So much progress is made in all fields by questioning the perceived wisdom. That is important. Stomach ulcers in Australia in the 80's is an example.
Some antidepressants and anti malaria leading to increased suicide risk.

I know many in the medical field who believe that the bird flu vaccines were a big scam on Govt's by pharma.
But it is equally important not to damage the questioning by supporting false theories. One must exercise one's own critical faculties.

magma69

steddyeddy wrote: »

Guys the point about the anti-vaccine debate isn't that Wakefield isn't unqualified. He's very qualified. He studied medicine in Imperial and went to a top private school in the UK.

The point scientists want you to take home is never take someone's word for it nor do you accept an argument from authority i.e he's a doctor. His paper was peer reviewed by scientists too. So don't take a scientist's word for it either.

Research yourself and see where the overwhelming evidence points to.

His licence to practice medicine was revoked for gross ethical misconduct.

His journal was later revoked as it was shown to be fraudulent.

A bit of research does go a long way alright.

endacl

steddyeddy wrote: »

Guys the point about the anti-vaccine debate isn't that Wakefield isn't unqualified. He's very qualified. He studied medicine in Imperial and went to a top private school in the UK.

The point scientists want you to take home is never take someone's word for it nor do you accept an argument from authority i.e he's a doctor. His paper was peer reviewed by scientists too. So don't take a scientist's word for it either.

Research yourself and see where the overwhelming evidence points to.

Once people aren't taking the word of yoga teachers and bloggers...

steddyeddy

magma69 wrote: »

His licence to practice medicine was revoked for gross ethical misconduct.

His journal was later revoked as it was shown to be fraudulent.

A bit of research does go a long way alright.

Indeed it does but it doesn't counter my original fact: he was well qualified as a doctor. His paper was also peer reviewed. My original advice remains: If you hear advice that goes against the grain research it. A doctor or scientist is not always right and I say this as a scientist.

steddyeddy

endacl wrote: »

Once people aren't taking the word of yoga teachers and bloggers...

Indeed. Take the word of science. What Wakefield spouted wasn't science. A cursory look at the paper reveals that. Even when his paper was published there was scientists saying it wasn't scientific. Some people took his doctorate to mean he was right.

darkpagandeath

I dunno, Have they not released a mainstream film about a miracle curing cancer or something recently ? People tend to believe what they want. You can type into google for example immunisation bad. Get 5k saying they are not and find 1 dodgy article written by a quack that supports their thinking. I mean Jesus look at the amour of the tubs of various live bacteria you get in supermarkets.

magma69

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indeed it does but it doesn't counter my original fact: he was well qualified as a doctor. His paper was also peer reviewed. My original advice remains: If you hear advice that goes against the grain research it. A doctor or scientist is not always right and I say this as a scientist.

Yes and the research says there is no credible evidence supporting the theory that vaccines cause autism. It also says Wakefield is dishonest and the evidence shows him to have an ulterior motive as he was a paid consultant to the attorneys of parents who believed their children were harmed by vaccines. He's full of shít and I say this as a scientist.

12Phase

Talk to someone born in an era when childhood diseases killed at least one sibling in most families and you'll get a very different idea about vaccines.

steddyeddy

magma69 wrote: »

Yes and the research says there is no credible evidence supporting the theory that vaccines cause autism. It also says Wakefield is dishonest and the evidence shows him to have an ulterior motive as he was a paid consultant to the attorneys of parents who believed their children were harmed by vaccines. He's full of shít and I say this as a scientist.

Indeed but on paper he was very well qualified at the time the paper was released. I think he's full of sh1t and a very dangerous man but his qualifications led people to accept what he said as fact. As I said never believe an argument from authority if it goes against science.

Also the peer review system should be looked at.

kylith

Water John wrote: »

So much progress is made in all fields by questioning the perceived wisdom. That is important. Stomach ulcers in Australia in the 80's is an example.
Some antidepressants and anti malaria leading to increased suicide risk.

I know many in the medical field who believe that the bird flu vaccines were a big scam on Govt's by pharma.
But it is equally important not to damage the questioning by supporting false theories. One must exercise one's own critical faculties.

I think that bird flu vaccines were a scam, but a scam that was demanded by the public because of media-led hysteria.

Water John

I wouldn't say 'demanded by the public' but pharma saw a killing in that Govts needed to be seen to act and pharma provided the potion.

mountai

Research yourself and see where the overwhelming evidence points to


Couldn't agree more . But what about when information is deliberately withheld from Parents re vaccinations that are presently being rolled out in schools in this country at the moment .??. Health Board Policy re the HPV vaccination is as such , and plenty of proof to back this fact up.!!

Raging_Ninja

mountai wrote: »

Couldn't agree more . But what about when information is deliberately withheld from Parents re vaccinations that are presently being rolled out in schools in this country at the moment .??. Health Board Policy re the HPV vaccination is as such , and plenty of proof to back this fact up.!!

Facebook posts and rants on blogs are not evidence.

But I'd like to point out that initially the HSE wasn't going to provide funding for the HPV vaccine in schools until there was a public outcry.

Even if there are side effects - if the number and severity of side effects are less than the effects and severity of getting the disease, isn't it worth it in the long run? Without the GBC vaccine, how many people would have buried children from tuberculosis? The same for polio and smallpox.

Cianmcliam

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indeed it does but it doesn't counter my original fact: he was well qualified as a doctor. His paper was also peer reviewed. My original advice remains: If you hear advice that goes against the grain research it. A doctor or scientist is not always right and I say this as a scientist.

Peer review means they read what you said you did and the results you got. They don't try and replicate it, they just look for obvious misinterpretation of data or bad methods. When you make up the results and don't describe your 'methods' then it's up to other researchers to try and replicate the results and show how the study was actually fraudulent. That has been done many times for this 'study'.

The fact is he was taking cash from a legal firm hoping to win a lawsuit, they paid him for a certain result and he provided it through gross scientific fraud and medical abuse of children.

Academic

Simon2015 wrote: »

By effectively banning this film it may make it more successful than it otherwise would of been.

One festival’s decision not to show a film hardly constitutes ‘banning’ it.

Cheers,

Ac

Duggy747

Amazing Wakefield is still getting mileage and support despite the mountains of evidence and all the shady shít he got up to which is all public knowledge. Suppose it does help when you have all manners of celebrities spreading incredible shít and fears about them.

People talk about vaccinations + conspiracies when, really, Wakefield was a prime example of a conspiracy himself when he (and others who helped fund him) used dirty tactics to discredit other vaccinations to get ahead.

mountai

Facebook posts and rants on blogs are not evidence

Evidence?? Take a look.



"Please only distribute these HSE information materials about the vaccination programme and do not forward any other non HSE vaccine information to parents"

Taken from HSE letter to School Principals sent in Jan this year . What is HSE frightened of?

Akrasia

Simple rule of thumb
If it's promoted by NaturalNews.com it's bullsh1t

It's the worst website on the internet

beach_walker

mountai wrote: »

What is HSE frightened of?

You Pierce, you.

stoplooklisten

Everyone knows it was banned by the man to keep us ignorant. DeNiro is well known CIA.

Raging_Ninja

mountai wrote: »

Facebook posts and rants on blogs are not evidence

Evidence?? Take a look.


file:///C:/Users/PiercE/Documents/Healthboard/healthboard.pdf.pdf

"Please only distribute these HSE information materials about the vaccination programme and do not forward any other non HSE vaccine information to parents"

Taken from HSE letter to School Principals sent in Jan this year . What is HSE frightened of?

You'll need to attach the file, not provide a link to your C: drive...

kylith

mountai wrote: »

Facebook posts and rants on blogs are not evidence

Evidence?? Take a look.



"Please only distribute these HSE information materials about the vaccination programme and do not forward any other non HSE vaccine information to parents"

Taken from HSE letter to School Principals sent in Jan this year . What is HSE frightened of?

Sorry, it looks like you forgot to link to the evidence.

As for the quote from the HSE, that just looks like "Please don't distribute any unofficial crap you downloaded off the internet". Which seems pretty much a non-brainer when it comes to medication.

Guy:Incognito

mountai wrote: »

Facebook posts and rants on blogs are not evidence

Evidence?? Take a look.



"Please only distribute these HSE information materials about the vaccination programme and do not forward any other non HSE vaccine information to parents"

Taken from HSE letter to School Principals sent in Jan this year . What is HSE frightened of?

People attaching any old ****e to their vaccination program that could then be construed as being distributed by the HSE? Why would they want anyone making unapproved changes to their information? Best case scenario is nothing bad happens. The HSE distributed information would be nothing more than a glorified wikipedia article, added to and edited by any looper thats bothered enough to do it.

Cathy.C

A little more on this today. Seems he somewhat regrets pulling the documentary now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ7iPn39i08

AtomicHorror

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indeed but on paper he was very well qualified at the time the paper was released. I think he's full of sh1t and a very dangerous man but his qualifications led people to accept what he said as fact. As I said never believe an argument from authority if it goes against science.

Also the peer review system should be looked at.

Yep. It's crazy that we haven't found a better method for validating publications, or just gone the way of math/physics and started doing open, unreviewed pre-publication.

I've had the idea in my head for years that some sort of scientific social network would do a better job of doing the basic validation job currently performed by peer review.

Cathy.C wrote: »

A little more on this today. Seems he somewhat regrets pulling the documentary now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ7iPn39i08

I think he should regret accepting it in the first place. Once that was done, they probably should have just screened it. Accepting and then pulling it was probably the worst outcome.

Cathy.C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I think he should regret accepting it in the first place. Once that was done, they probably should have just screened it. Accepting and then pulling it was probably the worst outcome.

I'm not so sure. It's not as if there wasn't going to be even bigger consequences for screening it. As De Niro said in the interview, other film producers that had screenings at the festival were complaining. He said he was too busy to deal with them and couldn't look too deep into who these people were nor why they were taking issue with it being screened but that now that he has some time he will be looking into who they were and also why it was that they objected. Whatever the case, seems to me that his is not one bit happy about being pressured into pulling it and intends now to do something about it. Horse's head may find it's way into a few beds maybe.

SEPT 23 1989

DeNiro knew exactly what he was doing

Duggy747

Cathy.C wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ7iPn39i08

Jesus Christ, the comments on that video.

Cathy.C

Duggy747 wrote: »

Jesus Christ, the comments on that video.

I liked:

"You offended us a lil' bit. A lil' bit."