I knew it wouldn't take long. I just knew it.
The moment I learned that Robert De Niro had reversed himself and decided to pull Andrew Wakefield's dishonest antivaccine propaganda "documentary" from his Tribeca Film Festival after having admitted that he was the one who had greased the wheels to get it accepted for screening there, I knew the conspiracy theories would fly fast and furious. And so they have.
So agitated by De Niro's decision are antivaxers that the chief antivaccine loon at his very own wretched hive of scum and quackery, Mike Adams, wrote not one, not two, but three posts in the course of a day. Behold their conspiratorial looniness:
- VAXXED film pulled from Robert De Niro's Tribeca Film Festival following totalitarian censorship demands from pharma-linked vaccine pushers and media science trolls
- BREAKING: Robert De Niro was clearly threatened by the vaccine establishment to censor the VAXXED documentary from Tribeca... new details emerge
- Calls mount for Robert De Niro to resign from Tribeca after betraying his own autistic child in censoring VAXXED documentary film
Who knows? By the time I wake up in the morning and my post goes live, Adams may well have written two more. It wouldn't surprise me. I had to wash the spittle off the inside of my screen after letting Adams screeds spew forth.
Right off the bat, Adams lets the conspiracies flow through him. First, he likens the decision by a private nonprofit corporation not to screen a film to "book burning" (by the vaccine industry, natch), Adams rants:
To try to strong-arm De Niro into pulling the film, intense shaming pressure was brought to bear against Robert De Niro by the vaccine totalitarians, who told De Niro this documentary was so dangerous that no one should ever be allowed to see it. Vaccine safety, they insist, can't even be allowed to be DEBATED, they insist! Only one side of the debate may be seen by the public, and that one side must be the 100% pro-vaccine side which ridiculously claims that "the science is settled" even when no one is allowed to see the science they don't want you to see.
OK, I'll give Adams one of these. It's true that intense shaming pressure was put on the Tribeca Film Festival and Robert De Niro in the form of critical articles, blog posts, and Tweets. That, my friends, is free speech. And De Niro should have been ashamed. What he did was to give a prestigious forum to a pseudoscientific propaganda film made by a long discredited antivaccine crank who's been reduced to giving talks on a "Conspira-Sea Cruise" along with New World Order conspiracy theorists and crop circle mavens. Where Adams goes wrong is in his assumption that the vaccine industry must be behind this criticism and that any of it said that vaccine safety can't be debated. What we objected to—and quite justifiably, in my opinion—is a prestigious film festival lifting the profile of a misinformation-packed and deceptively edited piece of antivaccine propaganda. It's not "debate" to regurgitate long-discredited pseudoscience and more recently discredited conspiracy theories. Yet that's exactly what Wakefield's movie did.
Moreover, it's not an issue of "free speech," as much as Adams tries to make it one:
Yet De Niro discovered that even declaring yourself to be pro-vaccine isn't enough to appease the vaccine totalitarians. The mere granting of any public platform to this explosive document is very nearly a crime in the eyes of the corrupt, fraudulent vaccine industry and all its arrogant zealots.
As more pressure was brought against De Niro for defending the free speech of what might be one of the single most important documentaries of our modern age, he caved. He pulled the film from Tribeca, participating in the censorship that was demanded by the vaccine totalitarians. The film's page on Tribeca was also memory holed -- it used to be found at this link -- and De Niro felt compelled to issue a follow-up statement today that appeases the demands of the vaccine fundamentalists.
As I explained last week, no. Just no. Criticism of a bad decision does not equal censorship, and the decision by De Niro to pull Wakefield's film doesn't equal an infringement on Wakefield's free speech. Wakefield has no "right" to have his film shown at the Tribeca Film Festival, and he remains free to promote his ideas and "documentary" as he sees fit. So far, Adams' first article is just the usual antivaccine spew, the same sort of misinformation we've seen many times before.
Here's where the Robert De Niro-specific conspiracy theory shows up in the second article. Declaring that De Niro's decision was the result of a "coordinated, simultaneous attack against the Tribeca Film Festival to censor a film none of them had even seen" by the media, Adams declares:
Natural News can now report that Robert De Niro and his wife spoke directly with U.S. Congressman Bill Posey for approximately one hour on Friday, during which De Niro was given numerous assurances by Congressman Posey that the CDC whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson, really did confess to taking part in massive scientific fraud to conceal the links between vaccines and autism. It was based in part on this assurance that De Niro originally backed the film's screening at Tribeca.
But hours later, somebody got to De Niro. Somebody powerful and connected whom we believe threatened Robert De Niro into silence. This mysterious conversation has not been revealed. De Niro has not released the names of those from the "scientific community" who threatened him, nor have the VAXXED filmmakers been offered any ability to respond to whatever accusations may have been falsely leveled against the film.
"Natural News can now report"? How cute. Adams thinks he's a real reporter. In any case, how on earth would Adams know this? Who knows? We all know Adams spews nonsense and misinformation; so it's highly likely that this, too, is made-up nonsense and misinformation. But let's, for the sake of argument, consider the possibility that it is not. I've already discussed Posey's pathetic attempt to spin the William Thompson's (a.k.a. the "CDC whistleblower) accusations into accusations of massive scientific fraud, when in fact they were nothing of the sort. Indeed, when the documents given to Posey by Thompson didn't show any evidence of fraud at the CDC, and even Thompson himself didn't seem to buy the accusations that they did. Certainly, Thompson didn't accuse his co-authors of scientific fraud.
(If you are unfamiliar with the CDC whistleblower story, the links cited will help, as will this primer.)
If De Niro is in any way savvy (and I rather suspect he is), talking to Bill Posey might very well have revealed to him how thin the conspiracy theory that is the "CDC whistleblower" really is.
It's not enough for Adams to insinuate, though. He has to get explicit. In fact, he does his damndest to convince his readers that death threats had been made against De Niro:
The silencing of VAXXED, in other words, was carried out with the same secrecy under which the entire vaccine industry operates. There is zero transparency, no due process, no discussion and no debate. Robert De Niro may have even been death threated by the vaccine establishment -- an industry already steeped in the maiming and murdering of children worldwide. To silence this powerful film, they would stop at nothing... not even threatening Robert De Niro with destroying his professional career or possibly his life or family.
This is the vaccine mafia at work: Threatening people into silence, censoring a powerful documentary, leveling secret accusations in secret meetings, all while ridiculously claiming they alone have a monopoly on scientific truth which can never be challenged, debated or even questioned by anyone.
It seems to me that perhaps Adams has been watching too many Robert De Niro movies, particularly his mafia and gangster movies.
Due process? Once again, as I've pointed out before, the Tribeca Film Festival is a private organization. It can choose which movies to screen (or not to screen) based on any criteria it deems appropriate. it can take back an invitation to screen a film, and it does not owe any filmmaker "due process." The only penalty it might pay is if its decisions come to be seen as so capricious that good filmmakers no longer wish to submit their work to it. Indeed, it's likely that one reason why De Niro made the decision he did was for the good of the Tribeca Film Festival, which was suffering a PR bloodbath as a result of Wakefield's film being screened there. Filmmakers like Penny Lane were actually openly criticizing it.
I'm guessing that privately, De Niro was getting an earful from many of the stakeholders of the Tribeca Film Festival. Remember, even though he is one of hte founders, it's not just about Robert De Niro. There are sponsors, people whose livelihood depends on a successful festival, filmmakers who don't want to be associated with the likes of Wakefield, and, of course, the board of directors, who likely would not be pleased at the black eye the festival was suffering by association with Wakefield and the destruction of trust in the festival's process for vetting films to be selected by De Niro's revelation that he had meddled in the selection process to let Wakefield's "documentary" in. In any case, Wakefield is now claiming in an e-mail to HIV/AIDS denialist Celia Farber that it was the Sloan Foundation that put pressure on De Niro, apparently because "The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, in partnership with the Tribeca Film Institute, provides funding for narrative features or series that are scientifically relevant, accurate, and exciting through the TFI Sloan Filmmaker Fund.” I can see how a sponsor like the Sloan Foundation might not be too pleased with the screening of a film by Wakefield at the Tribeca Film Festival.
What it all boils down to is that the credibility of the Tribeca Film Festival was at stake, but not for the reason Adams thinks it is:
In the coverage of all this, we just witnessed the mainstream media committing CREDIBILITY SUICIDE. The entire media just followed in the footsteps of North Korea or Communist China, ordering a film festival to censor a documentary that's so powerful, it threatens the cascade of lies propping up the fraudulent vaccine industry and all its hidden truths (that are about to be exposed).
The same Tribeca Film Festival that happily previewed films like "37 USES FOR A DEAD SHEEP" and "TICKED-OFF TRANNIES WITH KNIVES" has decided that the VAXXED documentary is too dangerous for the public to be allowed to view. But this was not a decision reached with rationality and truth: It was arrived at via the process of media totalitarianism -- intimidation and threats aimed at Robert De Niro to force him to silence this film and withdraw it from the festival.
Let's see. Just because Tribeca has screened movies that might not have been the greatest, it should screen Vaxxed too? One notes that Ticked-Off Trannies with Knives is fiction. One also notes that 37 Uses for a Dead Sheep is actually an intriguing documentary about a nomadic sheep herding people, described thusly: "Pamir Kirghiz people have migrated across Central Asia from the U.S.S.R to China to Afghanistan to Pakistan and finally to remote eastern Turkey, but now they face the most serious threat to their traditions, globalization." It's a movie that's won the Caligari Film Award at the Berlin International Film Festival and the award for Best International Documentary at the Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival. I can't help but think that Adams probably scanned the lists of films screened at Tribeca over the last several years and looked for titles that sounded dumb to him.
In a way, though, it's the last in Adams trilogy of stupid that is the most amusing. Look at the title: Calls mount for Robert De Niro to resign from Tribeca after betraying his own autistic child in censoring VAXXED documentary film. Can you guess who's making theese "mounting calls" for De Niro to resign? Behold:
After being maliciously attacked by a coordinated mainstream media campaign designed to censor a powerful new documentary, Robert De Niro is now facing a tidal wave of backlash from parents of autistic children who have been damaged by vaccines.
Originally hailed as a champion of free speech for his willingness to preview the VAXXED documentary at Tribeca, De Niro is now being widely condemned for turning his back on his own autistic child who was likely vaccine damaged to begin with.
Sherri Tenpenny, DO, AOBNMM, ABIHM, is among those who are calling for Robert De Niro to resign from his position at TriBeca Film Festival after pulling Dr. Wakefield's documentary, Vaxxed: From Coverup to Catastrophe.
"De Niro released a statement citing his child's autism as the reason to allow the conversation to happen when he defended Wakefield's film. To turn his back on it afterwards due to advertisers or pharmaceutical influences is a grave injustice and insult to parents of autistic children everywhere. He should resign as this is inexcusable."
Excuse me a moment.
Sorry about that. I have my laughter under control now (barely). So a bunch of antivaccine loons, led by Sherry Tenpenny, who, I note, is the founder of Truthkings.com, a new source of antivaccine misinformation, are now calling for De Niro to resign his position on the board of directors of the Tribeca Film Institute. So friggin' what?supposedly
The rest of it really isn't worth discussing, as Adams just regurgitates his same misguided rants about how the credibility of Tribeca is being destroyed by De Niro's decision (it's not; if anything, De Niro's decision helped save its credibility), how the vaccine industry "threatened" De Niro, and how De Niro is trampling on free speech (he isn't).
Although Adams is an extreme variant of the sorts of arguments antivaccinationists are making to try to counter the PR debacle that they've just suffered, it's clear that Adams isn't alone. For instance, on the Vaxxed website, we see Wakefield's response to his disinvitation from the Tribeca Film Festival:
To our dismay, we learned today about the Tribeca Film Festival's decision to reverse the official selection of Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe.
Robert De Niro's original defense of the film happened Friday after a one-hour conversation between De Niro and Bill Posey, the congressman who has interacted directly and at length with the CDC Whistleblower (William Thompson) and whose team has scrutinized the documents that prove fraud at the CDC.
It is our understanding that persons from an organization affiliated with the festival have made unspecified allegations against the film - claims that we were given no opportunity to challenge or redress. We were denied due process.
We have just witnessed yet another example of the power of corporate interests censoring free speech, art, and truth.
Tribeca's action will not succeed in denying the world access to the truth behind the film Vaxxed.
We are grateful to the many thousands of people who have already mobilized including doctors, scientists, educators and the autistic community.
We will be pressing forward and sharing our plans in the very near future.
- Andrew Wakefield (Director) and Del Bigtree (Producer)
To which I can only answer with two appropriate scenes from Monty Python.
Help! Help! Wakefield and his antivaccine admirers are being repressed.
Second, this one describes Wakefield's call of "Onward!" quite accurately:
What you've just heard are the sounds of Andrew Wakefield and Mike Adams saying, "We'll call it a draw" and then yelling, "Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!"
Then Polley Tommey joins them both by telling her fellow antivaccine activists that they should forgive Robert De Niro (as if his decision to yank Vaxxed was wrong) because he must have been frightened by someone or something and he took scientific advice from the "wrong people."
Truly, the level of delusion of these people knows no bounds.
- Log in to post comments
The Health Deranger has diverted the links from here to his three screeds to a different part of his site. To read the original articles you'll need to copy-paste the titles (for example "VAXXED film pulled from Robert De Niro’s Tribeca Film Festival following totalitarian censorship demands from pharma-linked vaccine pushers and media science trolls") and put them into a Google search.
I have spent the past several days watching this unfold. It is as fascinating as it was predictable. Their on-going alternative provider as murder victim theory dovetails nicely into this when they look for reasons for the movie to be pulled.
I am happy to believe that De Niro was the victim of outrageous barefaced lies from a lying scumbag politician, and that he changed his mind when he checked those lies and saw how much they contradicted reality. What I don't understand is why Mike is explaining this to his readers. Unless, of course, he really despises them and wants to insult their intelligence.
@Mrs Woo #2:
The "holistic doctors murdered by Big Pharma theory" was created as an alternative narrative to the more probable story that Jeff Bradstreet committed suicide following investigations into his role in an international online scam involving a "miracle" cancer/AIDS/autism cure called GcMAF.
The principal amplifier of this theory is Erin Elizabeth, who is Joseph Mercola's partner. She in turn is amplifying the "concerns" of Bradstreet's brother and sister-in-law, Thomas and Candice Bradstreet.
It turns out that Candice is also flogging the same "miracle" cure online, in a face cream vehicle:
Jeff Bradstreet's suicide was not a total loss, however, as Candice has exploited it to persuade generous numpties to give her $41,174:
The Del Bigtree interview has just knocked me off my chair laughing. This is...something else. I've kept a copy.
Dinguses. Dinguses the lot of them.
Mikey Adams sez:
Well okey dokey then.
Bob @7 -- That should be 'dingi'..
Hyperbole is part of Adams' signature style. Of course, he is implicitly admitting that the mainstream media still have some credibility, as otherwise they could not be committing all-caps credibility suicide. I wasn't aware that Adams thought the mainstream media had any credibility. Chinese censorship does not work the way Adams thinks it does: Mike is still posting his screeds from an address known to authorities, and has not been brought in for "questioning", as happens in high-profile Chinese cases. Also, privately owned media are not the government and not controlled by the government, unlike in China and North Korea. And the film in question isn't going to expose anything other than the mendacity of the people involved in making it.
@ herr doktor bimler
I'm afraid it's quite simple and quite ancient:
Personal testimony (a.k.a. gossip or also anecdote) is rated higher than physical evidence in public opinion trials. Especially if coming from someone in a position of authority.
Think witch trial.
A higher-up has spoken; he recognized there was a fraud. Case closed.
It doesn't matter that this senator very likely doesn't know any better than Jo the Plumber about the whole kerkuffle. Any contradictory evidence was planted by the men in black.
Wow! Reading a Mike Adams article is almost like playing Mad Libs with my kids... If they were insane.
Seriously though, I can't imagine what goes through that guys mind. I mean, I could assume it's just the sound of white noise, but FFS.
Don't forget the "Soveriegn Citizens" who were giving "legal advice" on that cruise.
They can always hold the premier on movie night
At the notorious FEMA camps holding facility they think exists.
I believe that there is indeed a vast conspiracy but it's on the other side!
There are international groups that advocate for woo ( ANH worldwide ) and fairly political units ( Health Freedom/ Libertarian groups/ see Bolen), not to mention the anti-vaccine and autism organisations which redundantly include the same principal activists ( the Canary Party, Age of Autism, Health Freedom whatever, Sane Vax, TMR et al )
Most of these groups maintain outlets of propaganda such as blogs, websites and internet radio ( Talk Network, prn.fm) creating faux documentaries as well as being on extremely friendly terms with a publisher ( Skyhorse) who prints their material. They implement conferences and lobby congresses and parliaments worldwide. Every group has loyal underlings who manage the day-to-day work of facebook posts and other advocacy on the internet who masquerade as concerned parents or citizens.
In addition, there are incestuous relationships amongst these groups: an antivax thought leader will appear on a natural health advocate's radio show, be interviewed on a friendly website or appear in a documentary like the one being discussed. They quote each other's research and projects whilst excluding SB studies. They defend each other when sceptics uncover their manoeuverings.( Truth Kings, Natural News, here)
All of the names mentioned above by Orac work together: they support each other and at heart, follow the same star- they seek money from people whom they mislead. Some of them earn millions each year selling products and treatments that at best do nothing and cause no harm; in addition to money, they seek fame and respect from their audiences. Many of them live in luxury on estates and hobby farms or ranches while pretending to be average- but highly intelligent and moral- people. The internet is rife with images of these palaces.
I should perhaps draw a chart of the internecine alliances but circles and arrows are not my strong suit. But it's all there.
The forever prescient Orac was correct:
Adams had two more posts today -
an interview with Del Bigtree and one that links the Sloan Foundations to N-zis.
What planet are these people living on? The autistic community absolutely hates being described as "vaccine damaged" and accepts the science that vaccines do not cause autism. The wider disability community also finds anti-vax to be ableist as it endangers people with low immune systems the most. Many of us need medications that lower our immune response and we shouldn't have to face anymore risk than that already entails because some ableist dicks are paranoid "teh autisms is gunna infect muh kid"!
If not vast, it may be half-vast.
Mike Adams has committed CREDIBILITY SUICIDE so many times that he should be an expert on the subject.
But alas, not.
"But hours later, somebody got to De Niro. Somebody powerful and connected whom we believe threatened Robert De Niro into silence."
Is it too late to get Robert Duvall to play the part of Orac in "The Vaxfather"?
So Wakefield cheats the system, pulling strings and getting De Niro to insert Vaxxed into the festival.
When the festival comes under attack, Wakefield does what any budding film maker would do, he gets a Member of Congress to call De Niro in support of his film.
When his film is pulled, Wakefield decries the lack of due process. Because he's played by the rules all along? because he was totally transparent about how he got into the Festival?
You cannot kill what never lived.
Certainly some of the participants are. But this is a full-blown conspiracy, and several people (Adams and Wakefield, to name two) manage to make a decent living at it. It's certainly an easier way to make a living than doing real science research. Alas, I have moral standards which prevent me from going this route.
Apparently boldface is the new all-caps - though apparently Adams still can't resist the urge to use both to make sure you know his statements are super-duper extra true.
@Euphonia #17 - Oh but you see, "high functioning" autistics like us aren't like the anti-vaxers' kids, so we don't count (except when they want to use the increasing numbers of HFAs getting diagnosed to support their "autism epidemic" fear-mongering.)
#18 - MO'B,
"If not vast, it may be half-vast."
I saw what you did there. Clever... and sneaky.
(If not vast, it may be half-assed.)
I remember, many years ago, during the Soviet era, reading an interview with a Russian writer. They had been very excited to emigrate to the U.S. where they would finally be free to publish their work. Once here, they discovered that no one was interested in publishing it. Or reading it. They commented something to the effect that, "At least in the U.S.S.R., my censors read my books".
Wakefield's freedom of speech ends at my desire to listen.
@ Eric Lund:
You are correct: all you have to do is......
Follow the money!
( I've always wanted to say that)
At any rate, as I now listen to prn.fm, the hoary old host gets into the act as well- about AJW and RDN:
there will be a special edition of his commentary hour Tuesday night with Andy and a special in depth report and an expert on trolls. "We will get the film shown" in the next 30 days and * more people will see it than at the Tribeca FF"
Thus proving my above point.
OH CRAP! I hit the wrong ( error) saved e-mail
but basically :
I joked and noted that as I wrote, prn.com announced that ....
Andy will appear Tuesday night to discuss the TFF/ RDN whilst the host will present an analysis or suchlike tripe and an expert on trolls will comment.
If Wakefield is so concerned about "freedom of speech", he can put his videocy on YouTube. It will be available without interference worldwid.
He is entitled to free speech, not money and prestige.
All these "holistic doctor murders" they claim, yet somehow 1st tier cranks, quacks and frauds like Wakefield, Adams, Mercola, BL Fisher, Tenpenny, etc keep thriving and surviving.
Pretty sh**ty conspiracy if you ask me.
Do we think Mike Adams is truly this delusional/paranoid, or is merely a pandering con who talks a good game? Serious question.
Is it too late to get Robert Duvall to play the part of Orac in “The Vaxfather”?
or is HE merely a pandering con etc. etc. edit function etc.
I think that Mikey believes SOME of his rants -
that there are huge conspiracies, that he is indeed a brilliant seer who sees into plots and understands science, that his woo works and he will be on top after the much vaunted paradigm shift occurs-
HOWEVER I think that he also lies ( presenting his guesses as facts) and exaggerates the extent to which his altie nonsense works as well as the likelihood of many of his end times scenarios.
I also believe that he follows many of his woo-fraught dietary regimes assiduously. He probably also raises chickens and goats as he reports.
He hasn't the ability to self- critique and self-evaluate his capacities. In short, he thinks he *da bomb*
Leading numpty Jon Rappoport weighs in on the subject:
Poor fellow can't seem to answer his own rhetorical question. https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/vaxxed-how-did-they-threa…
Denice @ #15
You could just sum that up by saying they have a coefficient of inbreeding approaching 1.
That makes a lot of sense, Denice. Thank you.
Think about this. You can see a film about US drone strikes killing innocent civilians. You can see a film about criminal surveillance of the entire population. You can see a film about the CIA overthrowing foreign governments. You can see a film about mega-corporations spewing chemicals into towns, where children are born with defects and adults are dying of cancer.
But you can’t see a film that suggests a vaccine could be causing autism.
And why won't Tribeca screen the documentary I made on caring, gentle pedophiles??
You're probably correct but my! do your words create unseemly and disturbing images.
"“Natural News can now report”? How cute. Adams thinks he’s a real reporter."
The conspiracies associated with this story run deep and wide. Vaccine resistance movement group is ground zero for them, if anyone wants to look on Facebook. My favorite is that they silenced De Niro by threatening to kill him in the same way they killed Steve McQueen They think McQueen had pancreatic cancer and was cured. He was going to "blow the lid off" the cancer treatment world but the CIA offed him first. So, De Niro was silenced, apparently by the CIA and Obama.
Steve died of lung cancer, by the way.
they have a coefficient of inbreeding approaching 1
janet, I am so stealing that.
they killed Steve McQueen They think McQueen had pancreatic cancer and was cured. He was going to “blow the lid off” the cancer treatment world but the CIA offed him first. So, De Niro was silenced, apparently by the CIA and Obama.
Wow, can't even keep their Steves straight. Steve Jobs had an islet cell carcinoma of the pancreas. And also Steve McQueen died in 1980
Maybe their combining Steve Jobs with Patrick Swayze to come up with Steve McQueen (which is an obvious anagram, or is it a palindrome)?
Certainly in all this, one can conclude Mike Adams lacks any sense of moral fortitude or decency. He also may be playing up past speculation of DeNiro being Jewish by modifying the Tribeca logo to include a swastika, an utterly reprehensible & morally desperate act of cowardice. There appears to be no low Mike Adams won't plumb!
I felt that it might be enlightening to look up Mike's educational background:
he's vague about it in Health Ranger.com- the only place he admits what his degree is in was in a July 2016 article about his "brush with poverty"-
it's a BS in Technical Writing.
Oddly I find that as hard to believe as if he stated that he had one in science, mathematics or psychology.
that's July 2014
@ Denice Walter
Are you sure Mike didn't put the words back to front?
Actually, he spells it out but I thought my version ( notice no quotes) superior.
Mrs Pointer @4:
It turns out that Candice is also flogging the same “miracle” cure online, in a face cream vehicle:
In the interests of pedantry accuracy, we should note that Lesley Hutchings-- manufacturer of the "MafActive" products that Candice Bradstreet is peddling -- is careful not to claim that they actually contain GcMAF. Instead she describes them as "based around a isolated immune protein similar to that known as GcMAF", or else as unspecified "glycoprotein".
For further accuracy, I note that the MafActive range includes a glycoprotein enriched toothpaste.
I just looked up the trailer for 37 Uses For A Dead Sheep. I'm going to put that on my to-watch list; it looks interesting. And based in reality. Like a film that's worth showing at a festival.
Censorship? You want censorship, just try posting a reasonable, factual comment on Adams' Natural News site that contradicts what he posts. As a friend of mine recently learned, for committing such an offense, Natural News will have you banned. But it's not the CIA, vaccine, or pharmaceutical industry that Adams need fear, but fanatics in the Italian mafia who greatly respect Mr. De Niro.
DW: "I also believe that he follows many of his woo-fraught dietary regimes assiduously. He probably also raises chickens and goats as he reports."
Are you sure you're using the correct verb in that last sentence?
Only a B.S.? Mike should have gone for the Ph.D. We all know what B.S. stands for--M.S. means "More of the Same" and Ph.D. means "Piled Higher and Deeper".
Are you sure you’re using the correct verb in that last sentence?
38 uses for a dead goat.
I'm sure you'll all be delighted to learn there is now the obligatory Change.org petition:
Speaking of censorship, L'il Jake Crosby blocked further posts from me because I dared to probe his claim that Wakefraud was going to seek his medical licence back, based of course on the Walker-Smith appeal. I asked him how that would work and he gave me a link for the wrong oversight to handle such an affair.
I looked at Jake's comments, and I see he pointed Science Mom toward http://www.mpts-uk.org/
Not being at all familiar with this organization (not being a subject of the Queen, and all) I had to have a look.
It seems that they "are the adjudication function for UK doctors. We protect patients by making independent decisions about a doctor’s fitness to practise, measured against professional standards set by the GMC. We have powers to impose sanctions on a doctor’s practice, where necessary, to protect the public."
Jake says the site has information that shows how "Doctor" Wakefield can have his medical license restored. They can impose sanctions, but what about appeals? Well, they have a whole page dedicated to just that.
What do they say about it?
How long ago was "Doctor" Wakefield struck off? More than 28 months, I believe, considerably more than 28 days.
But Jake never let common sense or the facts hold him back, has he?
Quite true Johnny although the GMC does allow for "restoration of licence" http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/registration_applications/restoration.asp if you don't appeal within the (very strict) 28 days then you have to wait five years for filing for restoration.
Click on "Certificates of Good Standing" and this is where Wakefraud is a wee bit screwed.
"to file for restoration" blech.
Perhaps Andy isn't trying to get a licence in the UK:
he lives in the US... so maybe there?
I wonder if being struck off elsewhere would interfere with attempting that feat.
There's always going for an ND at Bastyr. Or a DC degree.
Yeah kinda. 'Tho he might be able to shop around for some country with a low bar for a licence to practice. If he's seriously going to attempt this, it's pretty much a given there will be various fund-raisers for St. Andy. Another stupid PR stunt.
Hell, he can't even demonstrate current competence.
That specifically excludes the GMC; the five-year rule indeed appears to govern in this case (PDF).
Did you read this? (Yeah you probably did)
10 What factors do the medical practitioners tribunal
take into account when considering the application for restoration?
The tribunal will consider a number of factors, including the following:
a The circumstances that led to erasure.
b The reasons given by the previous tribunal (or
committee) for the decision to direct erasure.
c Whether you have any insight into the
matters that led to erasure.
d What you have done since your name was erased from the register.
e The steps you have taken to keep your medical
knowledge and skills up to date and the steps you have taken to rehabilitate yourself professionally and socially.
Oh I see what you are saying now. Yes, I know but isn't the problem where has Wakefield been practising in order for him to be in good standing?
"it threatens the cascade of lies propping up the fraudulent vaccine industry and all its hidden truths (that are about to be exposed"...... have they set a date?
"When you apply, we will ask you for details of each medical regulatory authority that you have been registered or licensed with in the last five years (other than the General Medical Council), even if you have not practised in that jurisdiction.
'You must send us a certificate of good standing from each of the medical regulatory authorities that you have listed."
It's about people whose UK registrations have lapsed because they've been practicing elsewhere (I presume that the "even if" language isn't meant to exclude not practicing at all).
I didn't say that he wasn't utterly fυcked, mind you. He'd have to cop to the whole shebang and show contrition – throw himself on the mercy of the court, in other words.
Soooo, look out Kazakhstan? I'll refrain from inserting any Borat jokes albeit tempting.
The chances of Andrew Wakefield doing this will be nil. It would mean admitting he was wrong.
He would also fail on item c) as well.
^ "isn’t meant to exclude include not practicing at all"
Heh. I note that Patty Bolen's only recent contribution has been (in selling his role as proper leader of the antivaccine "movement," I suppose) some babbling about billboards and wearing T-shirts. In the process, he manages to fail to understand that the image he's lifted from Renee DiResta shows the opposite of what he thinks it does.
I've been watching this Tribeca thing with interest but frankly with a large amount of ignorance about what goes on in the film universe.
From what I can tell, the quacksters managed to take advantage of De Niro's lack of knowledge of what they've been up to, and leverage his family's situation into getting their propaganda piece shown (almost!). This is a classic case where exceptional talent in one's chosen area does not translate to being able to spot a badguy in another area where one doesn't have expertise.
In other words, Wakefield tried to screw De Niro and almost succeeded until others in the film community and the sciences were able to give him the heads-up. At which point De Niro did the right thing, but now he's being given a huge ration of s*** from the con-artists and their sympathizers. With friends like those...
The sheer ghoulishness of Wakefield and his pals is way beyond shocking. In effect they treated De Niro as an object of opportunity, to be manipulated because he has an autistic kid. That's just evil.
With that attitude, Wakefield has about as much chance of getting his license back, as Ammon Bundy has of getting a national wildlife refuge named after him.
^ The first of DiResta's slides is also titled "Human Robots."
Grey Squirrel: "From what I can tell, the quacksters managed to take advantage of De Niro’s lack of knowledge of what they’ve been up to, and leverage his family’s situation into getting their propaganda piece shown (almost!). This is a classic case where exceptional talent in one’s chosen area does not translate to being able to spot a badguy in another area where one doesn’t have expertise."
This is what baffles me... how could anyone with a autistic teenager, who is almost an adult, not know about Wakefield's reputation? Did he leave all of the parenting of the child to Grace Hightower? I have serious problems with that.
Except that is also my experience with dear hubby. He had no clue, he left it all to me to manage. After the feedback session from the psychologist who diagnosed our twenty something year old son, my dear hubby pointed at his weird pacing by our car like it was something new. I had to tell him it was a behavior I had known about for years.
At least I now have hubby on board. I feel for what Ms. Hightower has gone through over the past few years, even though I despise her support of a sociopath like Wakefield.
Some clarification: I am assuming that Ms. Hightower and I have had the same problem with our hubbies --- both were living in denial (you know that river in Egypt). Rim shot.
Gray Squirrel: "With that attitude, Wakefield has about as much chance of getting his license back, as Ammon Bundy has of getting a national wildlife refuge named after him."
That is hilarious, and very true.
The Health Deranger is now claiming that Tribeca's decision to pull the film is because they and many other film festivals have been infiltrated by the Nazi-linked Sloan foundation:
"The Nazi dream of eugenics and genetic domination continues on through the Sloan Foundation and its infiltration of Sundance and Tribeca film festivals."
Mikey also invites us to discover more about the Sloan Foundation through his Goodgopher search engine, whose fifth search result is the JewWatch website. Apparently the Sloan Foundation are not only Nazis, they are also Jewish Supremacists:
Robert De Niro says that he was only wanting to start a "conversation". As my mother, Mrs Pointer Snr, used to say - "you should be careful what you wish for".
Because the Press (with the notable exception of Brian Deer) that made such a hue and cry over Wakefield's original study, was considerably quieter over his conviction and striking off. I only found out about Wakefield when I was searching Google News for stories about autism. That's what got me involved. It''s not too difficult to understand how somebody might not know that.
In addition, Wakefield is a charming and very plausible individual. It's quite possible that De Niro or Hightower did find out, but that Wakefield was able to convince them that there was chicanery against him.
Hmm, scratches head in surprise.
Ehh, aren't those groups mutualy exclusive?
From what I've learned the Nazis wanted to destroy all Jews.
I was curious to see if any publicly information existed about the Truthkings(TK) site, but apparently they’re not into transparency.
Here are some other potentially meaningless tidbits:
All 3 "health” sites feature a large number of ads, so I’d like to speculate that their scare-bait articles are great for generating revenue, which is probably one of the primary goals with these business and the others. So, does Sherri Tenpenny own the TK site/ found the site, is she somehow connected to the site creator/had someone register the business in her place/use a pseudonym, or is TK just a platform that takes advantage of her articles, many of which draw in the health ranger crowd?
& BTW- TK's Facebook 'new page likes' are up 144.8% this week.
Please stop asking for an edit button: no edit button == more comments == more click through == more donuts for the business.
How far I'm off?
or is TK just a platform that takes advantage of her articles
Not seeing any original material there, because that would require work.
Grifters gotta grift.
Free speech? Never, ever heard of it?The vaccine film Robert De Niro won’t let his audience see. Robert De Niro Is a coward....I never thought anyone would say that, yet there it is.
How dare Robert De Niro express himself freely! He ought to be allowed to say what YOU tell him only, or it's not freedom FREEEEDOOOOMMM!!!!!one!!
Also, just tell Wakefield to put it up on Youtube or vimeo, or rent a theater to show it yourself.
Over at the Forbes' article from Tara Haelle, quite a number of readers wrote quite nasty comments, in essence reproaching Ms Haelle to express her negative opinion on Wakefield's movie.
Apparently, free speech doesn't extend to your opponents, even when they are writing on their own blog.
BTW, Jake has been holding that link in limbo for two days (the site still reports UTC).
Has anyone watched this movie yet? What was the movie like?
Hardly relevant judging it on a 2 minute trailer. I never saw anywhere in the trailer it was anti vaxx, just pro truth. Surely a fraud in the CDC, is worth watching? Cant wait to see it then I will actually be able to report MY OWN VIEWS on the movie, instead of reading everyone elses views, WHO HAVENT EVEN WATCHED IT?
WHY ON EARTH IS THIS CALLED SCIENCE BLOGS, NO SCIENCE ANYWHERE TO BE SEEN HERE????????????? ROFL
Why are you rabbit ing on about Mike someone? Has he seen the film? Hope so.... no one else has, is this Mike Adams person a film critic, or something? I think this whole piece of crap reporting was paid for by this Mike Adams, so you list direct links to his whatever? Clever move Mike? Because there is absolutely nothing of substance, except a set up bitch fight between this author, and some Mike fellow? How about just sending each other an email, and sparing us the rant?
List of reviews here.
It was made by a man who built a fortune on lying about MMR. I hate to get all biblical, but "by the tree you will know the fruit", and all that.
Setting aside the fact that Mr. Wakefield has been thoroughly exposed as a fraud and a huckster and the entire premise of the "documentary" (i.e the CDC whistleblower) just doesn't hold up under scrutiny, the fact that the mere trailer of the movie is found guilty of outright cutting and splicing of soundbites is enough to, as a matter of fact, judge the entire movie based on it.
Then you didn't look hard enough.
Between this thread, the 3 related threads (available as hyperlinks as the start of the main post) and links provided by the readers on these 4 threads, there must be over 40 scientific references to go look at.
I would also point out that "Science Blog" is more than this thread on Adams' reaction about a movie festival. Plenty of science all around, for those open-minded enough to honesty look for it.
As an aside, from the reviews previously quoted, there is not a lot of science in "Vaxxed."
Unless you count the use of the science of propaganda - how to make a movie light on evidence, but full of emotional appeal.
autofilling error, my previous post did not use the proper e-mail. Apologies for that.