Why do people have to see Vaxxed to criticize it? Wakefield’s own description of us tells us Vaxxed is bogus.

21 Apr

Andrew Wakefield got an interview on Fox to defend his film Vaxxed (the video and transcript are at Fox Provides Platform For Discredited Doctor To Claim CDC Is Hiding Evidence That Vaccines Cause Autism). And he’s shooting back at his critics: if you haven’t seen the film you can’t criticize it. It’s doubly ironic. First Wakefield’s team didn’t send out DVD’s to the press, and, second, many critics have seen the film. But the “you can’t comment on the film because you haven’t seen it” is the same argument he used with his horrible “Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis” film. (For those who are unfamiliar with it, it’s a film where Wakefield defends a mother and caregiver for the brutal murder of an autistic young man.) That film was worse than I expected it to be. And I was expecting bad.

Wakefield describes his film in the Fox interview. And just based on Wakefield’s own words, we can see that the film is inaccurate.

Wakefield:

Dr. William Thompson comes forward and says they have known for 14 years that MMR vaccine is causally associated with autism and they have covered it up.

This is wrong. First, the study Wakefield is talking about can not show causality. This sort of epidemiology can show researcher “here’s a place to look for causality”. Anyone who has been in this field for 20 years, like Andrew Wakefield, would know that. ]

But let’s get more to the point–Thompson didn’t say that they showed a causal connection.

From a statement by William Thompson:

The fact that we found a strong statistically significant finding among black males does not mean that there was a true association between the MMR vaccine and autism-like features in this subpopulation.

no “true association” means it doesn’t show causality.

Wakefield goes on:

And so the film, it’s his words, it’s his opinion, it’s his documents that really carry the message of this film that there has been a huge cover-up which has put millions of American children in harm’s way and it was totally unnecessary.

But as we’ve just seen, the key point of the film is precisely not Thompson’s words or opinion.

Wakefield appears to be using William Thompson as a sock puppet. We are told what Wakefield seems to either believe or wants us to hear. And with the claim that it’s not Wakefield doing the telling but Thompson.

But Wakefield’s own words about Vaxxed don’t match Thompson’s own words.

But per Wakefield people can’t criticize the film.

For whatever it’s worth, it’s not just William Thompson who stated that the study doesn’t show a causal connection. Even Brian Hooker, a colleague of Wakefield, didn’t claim a causal connection in his re-analysis of the CDC data. Here’s as close as Brian Hooker gets to claiming causality in his (now retracted) paper:

Additional research is required to better understand the relationship between MMR exposure and autism in African American males

Not “we found a causal connection”, but effectively “someone should test this for causality”. Frankly I don’t think this was a moment of intellectual honesty from Brian Hooker as much as pragmatics: referees know that this study can’t show causality so they would have rejected Hooker’s paper had he tried.

Thompson’s documents don’t show a causal connection either. I’ve made them public so people can check what is in them. Wakefield hasn’t. But Wakefield asks people to “make up their own mind”. The documents don’t show a “huge cover-up”. They don’t show “millions of children in harm’s way”.

Simple check of facts here: The “huge cover-up” putting millions of American children in harm’s way”, shouldn’t we address this? Wakefield is discussing one preliminary result in the CDC study: African American boys vaccinated before age 3. In all other groups, the study (confirmed by Brian Hooker) shows what all the other MMR studies show: no indication of an MMR/autism link. This point, by the way, isn’t stressed in Vaxxed. Even when they bring in autism families, they are mostly white.

But, back to this result. Leaving aside that Vaxxed isn’t accurate, shouldn’t we be concerned? Well let’s do some checking. Brian Hooker in his paper is saying that African American boys are 3.36 times more likely to be diagnosed autistic if they get the MMR vaccine before 36 months. If that is due to a real causal connection, we should easily see that in other data. MMR uptake is generally comparable by race. So even though African Americans are a minority in the U.S., 3.36 is high enough that some indication of a risk would have shown up in one of the other autism/MMR studies. But let’s not just handwave like that. Let’s check directly: is the autism prevalence higher in African Americans? Boys are roughly 4 times more likely to be diagnosed as girls, using Hooker’s 3.36 increased risk for African American boys (and if I’ve done my math correctly) African Americans should have an autism prevalence 2.9 times higher than Caucasians.

2.9 times higher autism prevalence. That’s big. We would see that on autism prevalence studies easily.

The CDC recently released an autism prevalence estimate. And they show that African Americans are less likely to be diagnosed.

Estimated ASD prevalence was significantly higher among non-Hispanic white children aged 8 years (15.5 per 1,000) compared with non-Hispanic black children (13.2 per 1,000), and Hispanic (10.1 per 1,000) children aged 8 years.

Yes, African Americans are less likely to be diagnosed (about a factor of 0.85). Again, using the data that Wakefield claims shows a “causal” connection between the MMR and autism, we expect 2.9 times higher prevalence. The facts just don’t match up with Wakefield’s claims.

The fact that autistic people from racial/ethnic minorities or low income families are less likely to be diagnosed is a problem true autism advocates are trying to fix. Many are not receiving the appropriate services and supports. But that’s what real autism advocates are working on, not Andrew Wakefield.

So, we have a film that by comparing Andrew Wakefield’s own description with the facts is inaccurate. But per Andrew Wakefield people can’t criticize Vaxxed if they haven’t seen it. That’s a bit of a logical fail on Mr. Wakefield’s part. Not like we have a shortage of those.


By Matt Carey

Advertisements

115 Responses to “Why do people have to see Vaxxed to criticize it? Wakefield’s own description of us tells us Vaxxed is bogus.”

  1. reissd April 21, 2016 at 19:23 #

    Excellently said.

    Nobody can criticize anyone, apparently, unless it’s Wakefield criticizing – and then any misrepresentation goes.
    But he feels entitled to scream censorship. It’s more than a little ironic.

  2. brian April 21, 2016 at 22:09 #

    Brian Hooker in his paper is saying that African American boys are 3.36 times more likely to be diagnosed autistic if they get the MMR vaccine before 36 months.

    Unfortunately, that’s an accurate assessment of Hooker’s retracted paper. Recall that Hooker wrote “Cohort data were obtained directly as a “restricted access data set” from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) via a Data Use Agreement.” Big oops there: treating case control data as if the data were collected for a cohort study.

    It’s unfortunate, too, that Hooker (like Wakefield) seems unable to understand that the case control study design for which the data were collected did not allow an assessment of the relative risk of ASD given vaccination–it only allows the determination of the odds that a child with ASD will have been vaccinated. That’s very different, and that difference invalidates Hooker’s findings. Thompson’s co-authors believed that those few boys were vaccinated because they were autistic and needed catch-up vaccines to access special-needs programs rather than that they were autistic because they were vaccinated late–and there’s no way that Hooker or anyone else can show that they had an increased relative risk for ASD because of MMR using that data set. You don’t have to see the movie to understand that.

    • Narad April 22, 2016 at 00:38 #

      Unfortunately, that’s an accurate assessment of Hooker’s retracted paper.

      It’s “accurate” only if one ignores which bins the “signal” was amplified by.

      • whythefuss April 22, 2016 at 01:54 #

        What attracted me to the issue is the mainstream media’s focus on the Lancet paper’s retraction but nothing said about Walker-Smith’s exoneration and Justice Mittings judgement in regard to the flawed decisions of the General Medial Council. IMO not a minor ommission mind you as the Lancet paper’s retraction is a power house of argument for those that fight for the current status quo. This ommission, this half-truth had a streisand effect on me. I bit like the pulling of the movie from Tribeca on thouisands of others.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2016 at 15:19 #

        But Walker Smith’s appeal has nothing to do with Wakefield. Nothing.

        I was going to discuss the why of that statement but instead here’s a lengthy discussion

        http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/refuting-tropes-andrew-wakefield-wronged/

        The fact that you know about Walker Smith to the point that you know Justice Mitting’s name belies your claim that it’s the press coverage that bothers you. Clearly you sided with Wakefield before hand.

        The idea that the general public would know those details and care, making this a Streisand effect event is just obviously wrong. For Wakefield fans such as yourself, people who don’t check facts but accept what he says, anything amplifies the brave victim persona of Wakefield.

      • Chris April 22, 2016 at 02:53 #

        “IMO not a minor ommission mind you as the Lancet paper’s retraction is a power house of argument for those that fight for the current status quo.”

        It was a small case series of about a dozen kids. Even with the fraud involved including that the children were referred to Wakefield by lawyer who paid him for “results”, and he ignored Chadwick telling the PCR data from the invasive tests showed no measles in the gut… the actual paper did not associate any MMR vaccine to autism.

        That was just made up by Wakefield at the press conference.

      • whythefuss April 22, 2016 at 03:46 #

        Interesting…you see, I keep seeing arguments along this line and others (paying kids to give blood, having a patent on another vaccine etc) and lots of other reasons to criticize Wakefield but in reality and law the GMC’s attack boiled down to 2 things. 1. That the paper said that the children were referred to the hospital consecutively and 2. There was no ethical approval for the elements of the study that required it. When this issue came before the Hight Court and the Mitting judgement, Justice Mitting disagreed and Quashed the lot. Yes, I agree. The paper never said the autism was a result of the MMR vaccine. There are a lot of people walking around who think it did and rebel against Wakefield based on this fallacy. I keep finding interesting correlations, one being, the complaint against Wakefield to the GMC was made by a reporter, 2 months after the showing of a television Drama about the Wakefield paper etc on British television. (Hear The Noise) 5 years after the publication of the paper. There is so many ommissions of the whole story that I cant but help have reasonable doubt.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2016 at 15:31 #

        The first charge found proved against Wakefield was that he made medical decisions (calling for tests etc) of the children in his research project. Wakefield was expressly forbidden from doing so based on his contract and position.

        I take it you either haven’t read the decision or you ignore the parts that go against your position.

        Mitting relied on the criterion that the GMC had to prove that Walker Smith acted based on a desire to perform research and that this was not carefully enough determined by the GMC. Anyone who read the first edition of Walker Smith’s autobiography knows he considered it a research project. The second edition heavily edited that section, so Walker Smith appears to have understood how damning it was.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2016 at 15:33 #

        The paper never said that MMR causes autism, but Wakefield did. Many times.

        And that’s what scared people. But you are doing a grand job of repeating Wakefield’s talking points. With all these years you haven’t bothered to check the actual fact, though. Pretty typical for a Wakefield fan.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2016 at 15:47 #

        Brian Deer didn’t make a complaint to the GMC. I asked the GMC for confirmation on this. The GMC started their own investigation and asked for Deer’s input.

        Were Deer the complainant he would have had standing in the hearing. He would have been assigned counsel. He wasn’t.

        Wakefield chose to not pursue his appeal. Apparently he had the money to engage in a lengthy defamation lawsuit against Deer and the BMJ, but not for a few days of appeal of the GMC hearing.

        Wakefield chose to let the decision stand.

        Wakefield also chose to present no defense in the original GMC hearings. So he wastes hundreds of thousands of dollars on a hearing–defending a license he even stated he no longer needs–presenting no defense. Then when they tell him they won’t fund his appeal he acts surprised and harmed.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2016 at 15:52 #

        What’s more important in this, and a point that Wakefield fans completely ignore is that Wakefield spent a huge amount of time defending a license he didn’t need. By his own words he no longer needed his UK license. But that’s not the important part you all ignore.

        Wakefield did all of this while supposedly running a research/treatment clinic. Thoughtful House. Yes, he took his duties to guide treatment and research so seriously that he spent much if not most of his last year there preparing for and engaging in the grand spectacle of the GMC hearings.

        Such are Andrew Wakefield’s priorities.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2016 at 15:57 #

        How many years was Wakefield head of Thoughtful House? 5? With wealthy backing. And a steady stream of patients who would be likely to agree to participate in research. With a gastroenterologist on staff scoping autistic child after autistic child.

        Which begs the question: why didn’t Wakefield spend his efforts replicating his claims? Say demonstrating that there is persistent measles virus in the intestinal tissues of autistic children?

        No, he didn’t do this (or tried and buried the results). Instead he spent his time on his GMC hearings.

        Such are Wakefield’s priorities.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2016 at 16:09 #

        Wakefield and his fans never talk about thoughtful house. It’s as though once he left the Royal Free Hospital he was drifting for the past 15 years.

        Thoughtful House let Wakefield and most of his team go. They changed the name to the Johnson Center. The website has no mention of Wakefield on it.

        It’s hard to spin that into the narrative that Wakefield is the brave maverick who has been targeted by big pharma.

        Thoughtful House should be the peak of his career. His proudest accomplishment. He had control. He could make a real difference.

        But instead it’s like those years never happened. Instead backing his Facebook page with pictures of his time at thoughtful house, he has a picture of the spectacle outside the GMC hearings. Where he was defending a license he didn’t need.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2016 at 16:12 #

        And you Wakefield supporters don’t care. He wasted years. Accomplished basically nothing. Had the opportunity of a lifetime, the opportunity supposedly to prove you all right.

        And failed.

        But he keeps all of you talking about the GMC hearings.

        Wow you know all about justice Mittings (even if you don’t understand the result). But you don’t care that your hero failed miserably at something that was real.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2016 at 16:16 #

        And what did Wakefield do after his thoughtful house failure?

        He created a charity. The Strategic Autism Initiative. Whose charter was supposedly to fund autism research. Hundreds of thousands of dollars collected. He had the chance, yet again, to prove himself right. To get all of you the proof you all believe is there.

        And he accomplished nothing. He paid himself over $300k, a bit over half of what he took in, to accomplish nothing.

        But you, his supporters, don’t care. He says vaccines cause autism so he can’t be criticised. His SAI failure isn’t one of his talking points so you “independent thinkers” don’t know about it.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2016 at 16:19 #

        And then there’s the last year he spent at the Royal Free Hospital. He had an offer for full support if he would spend the time confirming his claims. Instead of taking that offer he chose to leave. He’s since described the offer as being against academic freedom. Like hell. It’s a researchers dream of academic freedom.

        But more to the point, he had the chance to give you all the proof you think can be had. And walked away from the opportunity.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2016 at 16:23 #

        So there you have it. Three major opportunities to do the work you all claim you want done. And he wasted each opportunity.

        And you don’t care. He keeps you focused on his damned GMC hearings and you are all “Justice Mittings this” and “he’s such a victim” that.

        You, the people who should be most angry with Wakefield, spend your time repeating his talking points. Defending him everywhere. Patting yourselves on the back for being “independent thinkers” but missing the big story.

        Wakefield was at best a mediocre researcher. But he’s been great at manipulating his fan base.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2016 at 15:21 #

        It wasn’t a case series. A case series implies a series of patients who come in on their own. Wakefield’s active recruiting from a litigant pool, that you note, negates the phrase “case series”

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2016 at 15:25 #

        Wakefield would tell us his beliefs came from his 250 page report on MMR safety studies. He tells us this now, but at the press conference acted like he had evidence to support his claim of a “new syndrome”.

        Has he ever made his 250 page report public? Not to my knowledge. But his supporters don’t seem to care that they are just supposed to accept his word on it. The people who Pat themselves on the back for thinking for themselves just accept whatever he says.

      • Chris April 22, 2016 at 05:33 #

        How about he was wrong, wrong, wrongety wrong?

        It was a small case series, where he actually manipulated the data!

        It was disproved by Brent Taylor just a year later, in multiple papers. And by Mady Hornig.

        Wakefield is not only a proven fraud, but a joke.

      • Chris April 22, 2016 at 16:00 #

        “A case series implies a series of patients who come in on their own. Wakefield’s active recruiting from a litigant pool, that you note, negates the phrase “case series””

        Good point. Though Wakefield sold it as a “case series.” I doubt Whythefuss has even read the retracted paper, nor understood it.

  3. Narad April 22, 2016 at 00:36 #

    One may well wonder whether “criticize” could trivially be judoed against “praised,” given a recent Dachelbot entry. Has it debuted in Eau Claire yet? Was the “dissmissible offense” link shared more widely?

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2016 at 15:06 #

      Then there are the attacks the distributor has launched against film maker Penny Lane. Lane’s open letter to De Niro was quoted by many news sources.

      So, apparently Diaz can criticize Lane’s work without seeing it. Diaz went so low as to cite an Amazon review of her film. Some angry Wakefield fan wrote that Lane is a paid tool of the far right who believes the twin towers were brought down by UFO’s. It is such a ridiculous attack as to be obviously nonsense. But Diaz quotes that review in a press conference.

      Diaz distributed documentaries and he uses “its on the internet it must be true ” logic.

      It was painful to watch him embarrass himself like that.

  4. Agnotologist April 22, 2016 at 01:37 #

    Semantic nitpicking won’t change the fact that the CDC covered up data to hide statistically significant data.

    They have misled the public for over 15 years on autism. By fudging their results, they lied to their fellow scientists. They lied to the rest of the US Government. They lied to the People of the United States. They lied to the FDA, the NIH, the NIAID, the AAP, the AMA. They have lied to the Press. They have lied to the so-called internet ‘trolls’ who spend inordinate amounts of time insulting and demeaning the vaccine-risk aware population

    I have great shame now when I meet families with kids with autism because I have been part of the problem.”

    Dr William Thompson

    • Narad April 22, 2016 at 02:48 #

      Semantic nitpicking won’t change the fact that the CDC covered up data to hide statistically significant data.

      Do you accept or reject Hooker’s analysis of the original data set?

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2016 at 15:10 #

      You mean it’s semantics that they made a scientific decision, one that is correct?

      They looked at a result and decided it wasn’t real. If you are trying to imply that the result showed (as Wakefield claims) a causal connection between the MMR and autism, you are not only wrong but you are ignoring Thompson’s own words.

      Thompson should feel great shame for the harm he has caused in the past two years. There was a right way and a wrong way for him to act. He chose wrong. Very wrong.

      • Christine April 23, 2016 at 01:45 #

        No, he should feel great shame and he does for throwing away important studies.
        “The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before the age of 36 months were at an increases risk for autism. ” CDC Senior Scientist Dr. William Thompson.
        There is not just a casual connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. This is a concern for all children, not just African American boys.
        It’s amazing how much people worship vaccines. Real science is ignored while children are damaged every day by vaccines, not just the MMR.
        Scientists and Drs have known of the dangers from the beginning. People continue to be brainwashed that vaccines saved us. If people honestly study the real history, they would realize this.
        We do not need toxic potions to keep us healthy. There are much better solutions, which have already worked, but people would rather have the gods of modern medicine to tell them how. Of course the average person is not able to do this!
        And the most dangerous part is that we are being forced to do these things. It is disgusting and people need to wake up and not let the government and the controlled medical system do this.
        You can say anything you want to about Andrew Wakefield, but the fact remains that he is a great man looking out for the welfare of children, against a very evil organization.

      • Chris April 23, 2016 at 06:21 #

        “This is a concern for all children, not just African American boys.”

        Why? Especially since the results fo some vaccinated after the ACIP recommended time, and just in time to be admitted to special ed. preschools at three years of age?

        “Real science is ignored while children are damaged every day by vaccines, not just the MMR.”

        Do present that real science. Post the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that any vaccine on the present American pediatric schedule caused more injuries than the actual disease.

        “We do not need toxic potions to keep us healthy.”

        Tell that to Jenny McCarthy who uses Botox, and promotes e-cigarettes.

        “You can say anything you want to about Andrew Wakefield, but the fact remains that he is a great man looking out for the welfare of children, against a very evil organization.”

        Prove it. With real verifiable scientific evidence not published by any of his colleagues nor friends.

  5. whythefuss April 22, 2016 at 03:54 #

    @Chris. Appologies, the television drama was called Hear The Silence, not Noise..:)

    • Chris April 22, 2016 at 05:36 #

      Which I sincerely tried to watch, but was repulsed by its flagrant stupidity.

      Hint: movies are not scientific evidence. Wakefield’s original paper never said any MMR vaccine caused autism (at that time UK had three separate versions, and one child was American and had received the latest American MMR developed in 1978). So you really need to try harder.

      • whythefuss April 22, 2016 at 11:45 #

        Try harder at what? Saying there is more truth to the GMC debacle that is being reported on. I dont know how to try harder at telling the truth. I do appreciate however, that someone with your contrary position to mine, that you do agree that the lancet paper never said their was a connection. How do you feel when you see mainstream media and medical journals imply or straight out lie that it did?

      • Chris April 22, 2016 at 16:04 #

        First you can start by reading the original retracted article. Point out where Wakefield specified which out of four MMR vaccines the study was about. Then point to the verbiage in that paper that clearly states that any of those four MMR vaccine is associated with autism.

        Then try telling all about the efforts Wakefield made to defend himself at the GMC hearings.

  6. Yuri Ryan April 22, 2016 at 06:05 #

    your argument, at the end of your essay, is based on a cdc study showing the opposite of what the skeptics claim, your lack of skepticism of corrupt government is peculiar, maybe you want black people to get autism? where is your human trait of skepticism, oh thats right, you are only skeptical of skeptics, like an inverted intelligence that can type and speak arguments against human common sense. Be proud of yourself for your defense of the corrupt.

    • Chris April 22, 2016 at 06:37 #

      “.., maybe you want black people to get autism”

      Where does this article say this? The demographic that had a “higher” rate of autism were those half dozen young black preschoolers who only received an MMR vaccine way past the recommended age.

      So you are basing your opinion on less that a ten children who more than likely were vaccinated after being diagnosed in order to be admitted to public school special ed. preschool?

      The real message in Hooker’s paper is to get the kids vaccinated on time! Much fewer of the black children vaccinated on the recommended schedule had autism. Just saying.

      • catherinajtv April 22, 2016 at 08:19 #

        YES – that is so obvious (the fact that these boys were vaccinated so much later than recommended). It would be cool if it was possible to go back and retrieve those 9 or so kids and check whether there had been concern about their development before the MMR (like in so many cases where parents “recall” the “immediate change” after MMR, but the doctors’ files show that developmental delay/concerns had been recorded before the MMR).

    • whythefuss April 22, 2016 at 14:34 #

      Exactly. This is what I am trying to say too…..my commonsense has kicked in and is only fueled by lucid but strawman arguments by other people who’s omissions of the pivotal stuff is deafening. Peculiar is a perfect word Yuri.

      • Chris April 22, 2016 at 16:10 #

        Your “commonsense” indicates that you have never bothered to read Wakefield’s original retracted paper, and still do not understand that it nor Hooker’s retracted paper teeny tiny numbers change the results of several much larger epidemiological studies conducted in the last two decades.

        How does that those small numbers of less than a dozen disprove Brent Taylor’s papers done at the Royal Free just after Wakefield’s 1998 paper, and Mady Hornig’s attempt to directly replicate it at Columbia Univ. with dozens more kids?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2016 at 16:26 #

        Your common sense.

        Read “I am an independent thinker”. Just as I’ve said.

        So how about those omissions of Wakefield’s dramatic failures to deliver research results?

        Wakefield has you guys discussing the lichen on the bark of the trees instead of looking at the Forrest.

  7. whythefuss April 22, 2016 at 16:14 #

    Nope. I didnt side with Wakefield beforehand. 13 years ago he was just a vague news report that, if I did anything, I accepted what I was told. It was only recently, I went back and had another look and looked deeper.
    “The idea that the general public would know those details and care, making this a Streisand effect event is just obviously wrong” My streisand effect stems from the one sided vilification of Wakefield recently. Onesided, most movie reviews of Vaxxed reviewed him and not the movie for example. “The idea that the general public would know those details and care” Thats a bold statement that assumes everyone is devoid of interest and opinion. You say its obviously wrong. Perhaps the idea that everyone is aware is a thought you cant tolerate, but if they werent, I hope our discourse and your lucid information of what happened has got more people looking into it

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2016 at 16:29 #

      13 years ago he was still a huge story. You yourself cited “hear the silence”. BBC didn’t make that because he was a ” vague news report ”

      But that’s not the Wakefield narrative, is it? Just like the fact that he was a media darling after his lancet paper is ignored. Doesn’t fit with the brave maverick doctor image.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2016 at 16:31 #

      Before hand. Before the film broke the news. The fact that you are citing Walker Smith and his appeal belies your stance as being independent and only being affected by this so called “Streisand effect”

      Not 13 years ago.

      Nice diversion attempt though.

  8. Bowers April 22, 2016 at 19:40 #

    Vaccines cause Autism FACT

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2016 at 21:35 #

      “Vaccines cause Autism FACT”

      Well, it’s in all caps so it has to be true? I guess actually backing up your comments is too much to ask.

  9. Bowers April 22, 2016 at 19:41 #

    Watch the film and start opening your ignorant minds

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2016 at 21:35 #

      I’ve been going over the film and checking facts for some time now. What particular part of the film are you referring to? A rough time into the film would be helpful.

      • whythefuss April 24, 2016 at 14:41 #

        Forget that. you have a kid with Austism. It pronounces to me that you desire a reason, an exclamation. I understand that, it is important to you that Wakefield was wrong. most Parents dont care about guilt re the vaccine, they just wonder who is going to look after them when we are dead

  10. Bowers April 22, 2016 at 19:43 #

    We are parents living proof of this cover up and unimaginable scandal and the truth is closing in

    • Science Mom April 22, 2016 at 20:49 #

      How many years have your lot been saying that?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2016 at 21:47 #

        “How many years have your lot been saying that?”

        At least the 10 years or so I’ve been following the discussion.

        For a while they actually make claims like, “by 2008 you will see. Autism rates will come down and it will be proof!”.

        They appear to have learned to be more vague about the future.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2016 at 21:37 #

      I am an autism parent. One who has spent as much or more time looking at the autism/vaccine question as any.

      Your wording is interesting. It’s parent-first language. No mention of autistic people.

  11. sadmar April 22, 2016 at 20:00 #

    Andy and his gang are just playing a disingenuous language game. As a former film professor and documentary filmmaker, i certainly sympathize with “if you haven’t seen the film you can’t criticize it”. But what Matt is doing isn’t film criticism. He’s calling out falsehoods we know are in the film because they’re in the trailer, and because AJW talks about them. This is neither ‘criticism’ (analysis) nor about the film, really, or about anything in the film that hasn’t been reported by people who have seen it. You do not need to see Vaxxed to point out the whole project is bogus, corrupt, and despicable.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2016 at 21:52 #

      “He’s calling out falsehoods we know are in the film because they’re in the trailer,”

      I know the film. I have one piece I need to finish about a specific part of the film where Wakefield tries to make himself the hero. Except, once again, the facts don’t fit his story.

      • sadmar April 23, 2016 at 05:35 #

        “I know the film. ”

        Matt, you’re being baited down a side aley, and you’re sticking your foot into the trap. I’m trying to help you out here, bro. This whole ‘you can’t criticize the film’ is a deflection away from discussion about how everything AJW has put on public display is bogus, away from that bogusness. YOU DON’T NEED TO ‘KNOW THE FILM’. “Knowing the film” is too all-encompassing. All YOU need to know for your concern at hand is what assertions of fact are made in the film, which you can indeed know without having seen it.

        Anyway, since your being beaten with the dumb-bludgeon, if you’re going to write about ‘a specific part of the film where once again, the facts don’t fit Andy’s story’, please follow standard journalistic practice by telling us how you know whatever you claim to know. If you have a pirated video of that section of the film, say so. If you’re relying on reports by someone who has seen it, use proper attribution: “According to [X} who saw Vaxxed at [A}…” (You don’t need to identify [X} by name, if that’s an issue. You know, like “According to a senior member of the Senator’s staff…”)

        In solidarity, s.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 23, 2016 at 16:01 #

        Do I have to spell out that I have a recording? Audio. Made at the first showing. I’ve known that the film is bogus since before most of the people who saw it got to the theater.

        And if you read the emails Andrew Wakefield gave to AIDS denial its Celia Farber, you know that a full recording was leaked. Who knows who has that.

        I have elsewhere already discussed that I am working from an audio recording.

        I stop and check when I get a verifiable fact. And Wakefield does in the film what he does in the trailer. And more.

      • sadmar April 24, 2016 at 00:05 #

        “Do I have to spell out that I have a recording? Audio.”
        Yes. Whenever you’re basing commentary on that.

        “I have elsewhere already discussed that I am working from an audio recording.”
        Obviously, I haven’t been to that elsewhere, nor should you expect other readers here to know about that. (Where, btw?)

        “I’ve known that the film is bogus since before most of the people who saw it got to the theater.
        Me too.
        I’m not disputing a claim the film is bogus, nor anything you’ve advanced to that effect, nor suggesting your knowledge is insufficient to make that claim.

        “I stop and check when I get a verifiable fact.”
        I know you do.

        “Wakefield does in the film what he does in the trailer. And more.”
        I have no doubt he does. The ‘and more’ is central to my point. See my comment on the other thread. You can’t know HOW much more, and exactly what kind of bogusness is in the rest of the film unless/until you can see the image track. You’ll have more, of course, from the audio track, but far from all.

        As you continue to discuss what you’ve found in the audio track, and if you continue the analysis when you get a video, we will all continue come closer to ‘knowing the film’. The mo’ knowledge the better. A lot of things are ‘bogus’. An important bar, but a fairly low one. Some things are more bogus than others, and in different ways, Let’s grant that all the anti-vax films in circulation are ‘bogus’. VAXXED may be far more venal than all the others combined.

        For example, your post of 4/22 discusses AJW’s view of autistic children as a blight on their families. This is manifest in the way the trailer uses images of ASD kids. (IIRC, you wrote something about that someplace, but I can’t find it, and perhaps it was someone else…) The reviews of the film indicate that the largest part of it is devoted to families ‘struggling’ with ASD kids, not the promised CDC ‘fraud revelations’. The reviews refer to this material as “heartbreaking”. Which suggests to me that it might be effective propaganda, coating what is ultimately a demeaning and stigmatizing representation of ASD within a frame of ‘all sympathy for the poor parents!’. I’m guessing it’s just such a nicer and more appealing way of saying “blighted”. Now, one might be able to glean the tip of that iceberg from the audio track. There might even be clips of parents talking that could be the basis of a partial critique. But in order to deconstruct the full measure of how ASD is represented in VAXXED, and make the best counter-argument to its perfidy, we’re going to need to see all the pictures, how they’re framed, cut, sequenced, matched to audio.

        I hope you’ll do that. And I’m confident that at every step of further analysis – of the full audio, of the full film – the limits of the sense in which any of us can “know the film’ from the trailer, promo materials, AJW’s history etc. will be manifestly apparent.

  12. David April 23, 2016 at 21:20 #

    The only question anyone should ask…

    Is the MMR vaccine causing some children to have autism °even if it’s less than a 1% ?

    When 100s of families tell you their son/daughter was fine before and changed over – night, that IS proof.
    It’s not even a question of is it happening but why is it happening!

    • novalox April 23, 2016 at 21:28 #

      @david

      [citation needed]

    • Chris April 23, 2016 at 22:39 #

      “Is the MMR vaccine causing some children to have autism °even if it’s less than a 1% ?”

      The first MMR vaccine was introduced in 1971 in the USA. Please provide the verified documentation that autism went up in the USA, a country much larger than the UK — so it would have been noticed, during the 1970s and 1980s coinciding to the use of that vaccine.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 25, 2016 at 14:38 #

      When hundreds of families make a claim, it should be tested. And it has. Repeatedly. But when each replication of a lack of association is met with denial, why should we continue to spend money and researcher time on this?

      To answer your second point:
      The thing is, sudden changes in autism are quite rare. And you can find accounts, like say JB Handley, that shift with time. In one telling it’s a long progression. In another itnwas sudden.

      Or let’s take the case at hand. Robert De Niro says he doesn’t remember a regression in his kid.

  13. Steph April 24, 2016 at 04:42 #

    I believe this site is Astroturf, very well funded by Big Pharma, like Wikipedia you look legit but either of you are. You have all the hallmark signs. Nonetheless, Big Pharma has peaked.

    • Brian Deer April 24, 2016 at 09:42 #

      And it’s very important for you to believe that, isn’t it Steph? So, so important to you.

      • whythefuss April 24, 2016 at 13:52 #

        Here he is, the man of the 2 decades has emerged. Brian Deer, Ive been wanting to talk to you and your employer currently and previously. Who got the GMC to listen about Wakefield?

      • whythefuss April 24, 2016 at 14:54 #

        Ok Brian, how about this. My mother was a lawyer, my father, one of the old school latin masters. All I ever wanted to be was a journalist. I admired you and I still do. Of all the journo’s in the world, it is fair to say, you are one. I liked the way you stood up to the parents and I liked the way you called people to explain themselves. But why did you only report on some of the story.

      • whythefuss April 24, 2016 at 15:48 #

        So, like any awesome journalist or reseacher, Brian is currently tying to to find me. You know what I believe? If Wakefield is right Brian will admit it. If wrong, and will that ever be proven?? This is just a story that both men lose on. Its really sad.

      • Steph April 30, 2016 at 07:12 #

        What is so important to me? Big Pharma? Money? What belief? This very expensive AstroTurf? I’m actually amused by how much time and energy and mostly head space you have put into Andrew Wakefield. Perhaps if you spent more time on helping your child or other parents with autistic children your child may be recovered. But on and on about Wakefield… He really gets your goat doesn’t he? Huh? I wonder why. I also wonder why Matt Carey writes under Sullivan? I wonder why if big Pharma was so creditable and just out to protect the world from deadly diseases then why does it have to pay off every media channel, special interest group, and plant AstroTurf sites all over the internet. Nobody ever has to convince someone that a rose is a beautiful thing, or that a child’s laugh is heartwarming,that exercise is good for you and that God is good. You just need to convince people to believe your lies when your survival is based on their trust. I don’t need to believe anything on this site, there is no help here for autistic children or their families here. This site is just a lot of white noise. If you truly have an autistic child you would never have time to create this diversion, nor would you ever want to. What you would want is to cure your child and to help others cute their child and to prevent it from happening to other children. You just want to bash Dr. Andrew Wakefield I know I said Doctor just to get your goat, tell Merck we can’t wait to see what their billion dollar PR campaign will come up with to get them out of this hole. That’s autistic parent sarcasm.. most of us have an edginess. If you are truly a parent of an autistic child. Then post some information that may be helpful or hopeful Left brain right brain is pretty catchy but it’s really the frontal lobe. Again this AstroTurf, all fake here. You are just part of this lie. Please know or at least let other parents know that there are websites that offer support and help for their children diagnosed on the spectrum. Karma

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) May 2, 2016 at 01:58 #

        Would you like me to rewrite your comment? I’ve seen “you” so many times I could write it much better.

        “What belief? This very expensive AstroTurf?”

        Yep. Belief. Because you have no data. All you are doing is repeating a term thrown out by a former journalist. That’s not thinking for yourself, that’s just wandering the internet attacking people. Doesn’t bother me.

        I don’t care if you call him “Doctor”. He doesn’t have a doctoral degree, hasn’t actually had clinical responsibility for a patient and surgeons in the UK are referred to as Mr. I guess that “gets your goat”?

        “gain this AstroTurf, all fake here. ”

        Funny. I’m the one using my real name and whose background is known, “Steph”.

        ” I also wonder why Matt Carey writes under Sullivan? ”

        Perhaps rather than phrasing it in an “oh this must be something big” way, you could either (a) do the minimal background work to check or (b) ask?

        Please, tell me where I can get Big Pharma to pay me for this. Please. Apparently you know more than I do on that. Tell me how to make money at this.

        The thing is everytime someone says “astroturf”, “big pharama”, “shill” and all the rest of the empty phrases you use, it tells anyone who is actually taking the time to think that it is you who has nothing to say.

        Want to talk about his film? It’s garbage. I know it, do you? Or are you just one of the many who defend him without thinking?

      • whythefuss June 7, 2016 at 13:58 #

        Why did you pick Steph?

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 25, 2016 at 14:31 #

      The nice thing about saying that you believe something false is that brings into question everything you believe.

      So, go ahead and repeat the talking point of the day “astrotur”. What does it mean to you, other than a cheap ad hominem attack?

      Here, I’ll make it easy for you: where do I say I represent a broad base? I don’t. I am an individual. Stop using catch phrases from failed journalists.

  14. whythefuss April 24, 2016 at 14:58 #

    Why didnt you tell the whole story?

    • whythefuss April 24, 2016 at 15:04 #

      Why not? How is it you could be in court every day for the longest GMC inquiry. As a journalist, shouldnt you be working on other stories?

      • whythefuss April 24, 2016 at 15:05 #

        You got paid to be there. Carte Blance

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 25, 2016 at 14:28 #

        Actually, it is you who has “carte blanche”. You get to write whatever you want and face no consequences. You don’t even have to back up what you say.

        Ironic, that.

    • Science Mom April 24, 2016 at 15:17 #

      What did he leave out then? And if you look at his website you can see he has done some very good pieces on other subjects including busting Pharma for misdeeds. I can see why you didn’t become a journalist.

      • whythefuss April 24, 2016 at 15:23 #

        Partial reporting

      • Chris April 24, 2016 at 16:18 #

        “Partial reporting” does not tell Science Mom what Deer left out. Answer the question with what was missing. Provide those bits and the verifiable documentation that they exist and are relevant.

        Otherwise, we will know that you are just making it up because you are a Wakers fanboi. You need to be just like Wakefield and make up stuff, just like he did for his 1998 paper, which is why it was retracted.

  15. whythefuss April 24, 2016 at 15:21 #

    It horrifies me, everything youve ever written, MMR and Wakefield, everything youve ever written is about to be made useless, because of the day to day evidence of vaccine damage. As a jounalist, I would just report the facts, put a tin hat on, jump down in the trench and watch. What a shame, all those years of work to be undone by parents by didnt know anything. Are you a parent?

    • whythefuss April 24, 2016 at 15:31 #

      Actually Brian, how may kids do you have?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 25, 2016 at 14:25 #

        Don’t use my site to bully people with personal questions.

        Yes, that’s a form for bullying. You are trying to set up an ad hominem attack. Which only points to your lack of substantive arguments.

        Get on track, stay on track or leave.

  16. whythefuss April 24, 2016 at 16:05 #

    What are we going to about the kids and young adults living the spectrum? I believe, that whilst we argue about vaccines there is a block, a wall, that stops funding to help these kids. We have to agree on something as soon as we can so we can set these kids up to rule the world after we are dead.

  17. whythefuss April 24, 2016 at 17:07 #

    @Chris The question I asked to Brian Deer was “Who got the GMC to listen about Wakefield?” After that I asked “why didnt you tell the whole story?” Then you told me to “Answer the question with what was missing, provide those bits and the verifiable documentation that they exist and are relevant” Hang on. Is that your criticism of a question I asked Brian? And is asking questions a reason to be attacked by someone who suddenly jumps into a dialectic without any obvious evidence that you have been watching the conversation. You said it yourself “partial reporting” I think that is where you came in mate, and then launched into an attack about me being a Wakers fanboi, which, in reciprocation would explain that you arent. Now, if you arent, and that is fine, perhaps your behavior would be worrying to the person who is trying to maintain a worthwhile forum here and in the old words “I dont need you help”

    • Chris April 24, 2016 at 18:53 #

      You made a claim that Mr. Deer left out relevant bits in his reporting. Now you must support that claim by explaining what was left out, how it is relevant, and support your answer with verified documentation.

      ” You said it yourself “partial reporting” ”

      This is what is called “making stuff up”, or in other words: “lying.” I was actually quoting you. This is why I used the quotation marks around those two words, which are from you directly above my comment. I also followed it with the words that made a complete sentence.

      Yes, this “lying” is the exact fraudulent behavior that how Wakefield behaves. You constantly defending Wakefield by being both obtuse, and actually shows how much you love Wakers and are emulating him, hence you are a “fanboi.”

      This is also known as troll like behavior, and if your next comment does not answer the claim you made about Mr. Deer’s reporting, then we will treat you like a troll.

      • whythefuss April 29, 2016 at 16:28 #

        We?

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 25, 2016 at 14:23 #

      “Who got the GMC to listen about Wakefield?”

      Well, in part that would be Wakefield himself. There’s a news story before the hearings where Wakefield says he not only welcomes the hearings, he wants them to happen

  18. whythefuss April 24, 2016 at 19:05 #

    You know, being a medical doctor, a degree in medical science can have a huge responsibility. In the case of Wakefield and the lancet paper, if he is wrong or if he is never proved right, the status quo will remain the same as is today and has been since 1998. If he is proved right, then some people, who arent qualified as doctors, will have to search very deeply about 18 years of the world going where it went based on what they did in a few short years and the lives of the children that went with it.

    • Science Mom April 25, 2016 at 00:11 #

      If he is proved right, then some people, who arent qualified as doctors, will have to search very deeply about 18 years of the world going where it went based on what they did in a few short years and the lives of the children that went with it.

      Wakefield has had many opportunities and the funds to do just that as Matt has extensively detailed. Your rejection of that does not negate the fact that decades have gone by and no one, in spite of looking has been able to replicate Wakefield’s claims. I guess you didn’t bother to read any of the OAP transcripts either. Where was Wakefield then? I’m still waiting to hear your evidence that Brian Deer partially reported his story. And by the by, the GMC went to him for his evidence, not the other way around fanboi.

  19. Chuck Lovell April 25, 2016 at 03:56 #

    Sounds a lot like propaganda you’re spewing
    I saw an interview and in Thompsons own words he says there is a CDC cover up
    So who do you work for??

    • reissd April 25, 2016 at 04:02 #

      Which interview? Aside from the secretly recorded conversations, Thompson did not speak publicly since Wakefield blew his cover, to my knowledge.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 25, 2016 at 16:14 #

        Or, for the most part, before.

        Thompson has a public statement through his attorney and a statement made to Congressman Posey that is now public.

      • whythefuss June 7, 2016 at 14:04 #

        Dorit is here. Like a time machine dorit has been everywhere. Working, working, everywhere. Who is going to win? The parents.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 7, 2016 at 15:05 #

        Glad to know you think I will “win””

        Except that this isn’t a game to be “won”. You should take your game and abuse a different community. We have had enough of being a tool for the anti vaccine activists.

    • Chris April 25, 2016 at 04:59 #

      Post a link to that interview. Make sure it is not any posted by Wakefield, who has a habit of lying through edits. Also make sure it is not just a phone interview, but an interview that shows his entire face explaining the coverup.

      Otherwise, we will assume you are another Wakefield fanboi and just making stuff up.

    • Science Mom April 25, 2016 at 13:17 #

      No one Chuck. Who pays you for posting pro-Wakefield propaganda?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 25, 2016 at 16:08 #

        Perhaps I should require people to prove they aren’t paid to post before they can accuse others of being paid. (My guess is Chuck took that seriously rather than seeing he’s being mocked)

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 25, 2016 at 14:13 #

      Thompson was interviewed?

      I’ll answer for you: no.

      At best you saw an interview with Wakefield or someone similar. And as we’ve seen Wakefield isnediting Thompson’s words.

      Thompson says that he disagrees with the scientific decisions made in one paper. Great. He lost a scientific decision.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 25, 2016 at 14:15 #

      Actually anyone can look up the company I work for. It’s pretty dull information hence then fact that you all pose fake questions (who do you work for) rather than stating it

  20. Science Mom May 1, 2016 at 04:30 #

    Perhaps if you spent more time on helping your child or other parents with autistic children your child may be recovered.

    Oh rly? Recovered how and with what? Chelation? Chemical Castration? Bleach enemas? HBOT? Hundreds of supplements/day? Unnecessary diets? All the people you probably follow haven’t “recovered” their children or are still “recovering” them several years later. You’re probably one of them who swallowed that bill of goods. Matt has done more to help autistics in a year than you ever will in your entire life you ignorant, gullible, arrogant twatwaffle.

    Then post some information that may be helpful or hopeful Left brain right brain is pretty catchy but it’s really the frontal lobe.

    You clearly haven’t looked around on this site because Matt posts many action items that your curebie sites never do involving bills, funding and studies. You have a lot of gall invoking dumbass conspiracy theories and telling a parent of an autistic child what they should do if they were truly a parent of an autistic child. Who the hell do you think you are? Crawl back into your pit of despair with your desperate dreams of an autism cure and let the rest of the autism community tend to the important issues like what’s going to happen to your child when s/he is an adult because you’re too damn busy trying to cure him/her and barf out conspiracy twaddle.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) May 2, 2016 at 02:05 #

      “Perhaps if you spent more time on helping your child or other parents with autistic children your child may be recovered”

      Yep, the old “you suck as a parent” slur.

      But I bet “Steph” wanders around the internet denying she’s a bully.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) May 2, 2016 at 02:11 #

        Perhaps “Steph” could tell us how many parents of recovered children (or recovered children) themselves are featured in Vaxxed?

        It’s zero Steph.

        The “spread misinformation about vaccines and we will put you in the “your kid will recover” club” thing is a scam. It’s the bait. The false hope. It’s what Wakefield sold to Dorothy Spourdalakis. Remember her? From Wakefield’s previous film? Dorothy Spourdalakis was “helped” by Wakefield. Afterwards, when Wakefield had his film and left her with nothing, she despaired and brutally murdered her son.

        That’s the one child Wakefield can take credit for “removing his autism”.

    • whythefuss June 7, 2016 at 14:05 #

      Science mom is good at copying and pasting and hanging around others

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 7, 2016 at 15:06 #

        And you are good ant content free taunts. Grow up. Contribute. Or leave.

  21. whythefuss June 7, 2016 at 14:06 #

    Hows it feel knowing that you may be wrong?

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 7, 2016 at 15:08 #

      How does it feel ignoring the possibility that you could be wrong?

      Again, all your latest comments are just trolls. Contribute real discussion or leave.

    • Lawrence June 7, 2016 at 15:17 #

      Wrong how?

    • Chris June 7, 2016 at 17:22 #

      Prove how wrong we are by providing the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that the present MMR vaccine that has been used in the USA since 1978 causes more problems than measles, mumps and rubella. And definitely come up with the verified documentation dated before 1990 that autism rose during the 1970s and 1980 coincident to the use of the MMR vaccine.

      And while you are looking for that, remember to read Roald Dahl’s The BFG to your children before the movie comes out. Make sure to tell them why it is dedicated to a little girl named Olivia.

  22. Shannon Adams June 9, 2016 at 05:35 #

    Wait until you see the firestorm of mothers that are going to march on the Capital and bring their vaccine injured children. Wait until you see the lawsuits already in the works to defend EVERYONE’S supposed inalienable right to freedom of religion, freedom to chose what medical concoction you want put into your body and your childrens. All these thousands of parents who witnessed their children suffer neurological damage within 24 hours of receiving a vaccine, stopped talking, stopped walking, started banging their heads against the wall from encephalitis from the vaccines, all these parents cannot be wrong. This has nothing to do with Wakefield other than the fact it brought attention to the toxicity of vaccines. You don’t need any scientific studies to see the connection, just talk to the parents. The government is going to be forced to hear their voices. Wait and see.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 9, 2016 at 06:08 #

      I’ve seen all of this. Well, at least as claims.

      I’ve seen the parents march on Washington. “Green Our Vaccines”. Where’s Jenny now?

      I’ve seen the lawsuits. I’ve seen the guy that’s running the anti-SB277 lawsuit. Seriously, fire that guy. He’s that bad.

      ” All these thousands of parents who witnessed their children suffer neurological damage within 24 hours of receiving a vaccine”

      That’s not even the claim. Ever read Wakefield’s paper? It wasn’t 24 hours. Ever read the vaccine court decisions from the prominent voices in the “Vaccines cause autism” movement? I have. They don’t claim 24 hours. They also don’t make claims that match their medical records and their video recordings.

      “You don’t need any scientific studies to see the connection”

      Yes, you do. You only say this because the studies are against you.

      ” The government is going to be forced to hear their voices. Wait and see.”

      They have. They responded by funding studies. And they showed you are wrong.

      • Shannon Adams June 9, 2016 at 06:41 #

        Parents know their children. We watch for every new milestone, we know if a cry means a wet diaper, a tummy ache, or just simply being a brat. So when thousands come forward and describe exactly what happened 24 hours / 36 hours / 4 days, and it’s utterly devastating and has ruined not only their child’s life but their life FOREVER, that’s who I believe. Same as cancer cures. There are millions curing themselves of cancer, but you have to dig to find the information, because those doctors treating those people are bullied, sued, harrassed, invaded by the AMA, FDA, because there are no ‘scientific studies’ to prove the treatment actually works. The proof is in the patients. They are the evidence. But if you chose to shoot your body up with aluminum, mercury, animal and human DNA, etc etc, at least that should be your legal right, and I should have the legal right to refuse.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 10, 2016 at 06:59 #

        “Parents know their children”

        Sure. But no one has a perfect memory. And this has been shown over and over. Parents say “it happened ’24 hours / 36 hours / 4 days’ ” but the records show they misremember. So your words are chosen well–you believe. You don’t know, you believe.

        You have the right to refuse. All rights come with responsibilities, and people like you always ignore that.

        You have the right to voice your opinions, even when they are based on misinformation, too. And you exercise that right.

        “There are millions curing themselves of cancer”

        no. There aren’t. You want to believe so you do. People like you spread misinformation on the internet and people like you believe it. It doesn’t help your credibility to claim fake cancer cures work. It just says you believe without evidence. In fact, you appear to prefer the lack of evidence.

      • brian June 9, 2016 at 07:18 #

        “All these thousands of parents who witnessed their children suffer neurological damage within 24 hours of receiving a vaccine, stopped talking, stopped walking, started banging their heads against the wall from encephalitis from the vaccines, all these parents cannot be wrong.”

        Well, yes they can.

        Parents miss things, such as the subtle early signs of autism that can be detected by trained researchers. [J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011 Aug;50(8):796-806.]

        People miss things.
        http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gorilla_experiment.html

        Remarkably, the proportion of parents who blamed MMR for their child’s autism increased following the prepublication release of Wakefield’s Lancet paper. Moreover, some parents seemed to have then recalled that their children had regressed, when no regression had been mentioned earlier, and some parents seem to have rearranged the timelines that they had reported prior to Wakefield’s fraud. [Arch Dis Child. 2003 Aug; 88(8): 666–670.]

  23. MindBody February 9, 2017 at 07:25 #

    How on Earth can you criticise something you haven’t seen. That is the epitome of prejudice.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 9, 2017 at 19:46 #

      I take it you are a chiropractor. Forgive me for pointing out that your profession is one of the most unscientific collection of biased people I’ve run into. If you are giving advice on vaccines, you need to stop. That is far outside of your expertise. Pretending that chiropractic is actual medicine is the epitome of predjudice.

      Did you read the article above? Any comment on what I actually wrote? I suspect not.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 9, 2017 at 19:54 #

        Ah, I see you are actually a general practitioner. My apologies.

        Looking at your professional activities and comments online, I stand by my statement that you are unscientific and doing harm.

    • doritmi February 9, 2017 at 19:48 #

      This post is fully dedicated to that question. Is there anything about the explanation given you disagree with?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. My (extended) response to commenters that our public health medical director should have watched Vaxxed before publishing his opinion piece | Thinking it out - May 22, 2016

    […] long, Dr. Shames and anyone else knowledgeable of the background and agenda of these film-makers should not have to torture themselves by watching the film before warning theaters not to promote this dangerously misleading propaganda […]

  2. Raging Bullsh*t, part 3: Robert De Niro says he’s teaming up with Harvey Weinstein to make an antivaccine movie – Respectful Insolence - May 24, 2016

    […] containing a heaping helping of antivaccine pseudoscience and misinformation. It’s a movie you don’t even have to see to know that it’s antivaccine […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: