The following Op Ed was submitted to MovieMaker Magazine by its author, Philippe Diaz of Cinema Libre Studio. As the leading magazine devoted to independent film we believe it important to allow this independent distributor to express his firsthand view of the newsworthy event that led to his company’s film Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe being pulled from the Tribeca Film Festival and Worldfest-Houston lineups, and the role played by the media. The opinions and statements are solely those of the author. MovieMaker‘s editors welcome the organizers of these festivals, organizations we deeply respect, as well as others interested in the topics and issues raised by this Op Ed, to contribute their own viewpoints.
—MovieMaker Editors
I couldn’t understand how it could even be possible—when the selection had been confirmed publicly by Tribeca co-founder Robert De Niro himself the day before.
Being the distributor of the film and having received all the paperwork confirming the selection, I was in total disbelief, as I had personally advised the filmmakers to submit the film to Tribeca.
The conversation became very heated when I asked the festival executives for the reasons. The answer I received was that they had “issues” with the content of the film. I said, “Fine—let us know what issues you are having and we will give you all the back-up documentation and set you up with the filmmakers so that you can get any clarification you need.” But I got no specific answers.
It was clear that the actual content of the film (a documentary by Andrew Wakefield about Dr. William Thompson, a senior scientist at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who believes that crucial information was omitted in a 2004 report on the Measles-Mumps-Rubella [MMR] vaccine and its link to autism) was not the full cause of the festival’s change of heart. They had already indicated in a previous conversation that their sponsor had issues with the film—specifically, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. It became even more heated when I asked Rosenthal and Weinstein, both highly accomplished professionals, if they realized the responsibility they were assuming and the message it would send to the filmmaking world at large. They were effectively telling the festival’s sponsors that it was perfectly OK to censor a film they didn’t like. They were also telling filmmakers around the world that they should only make movies that corporate powers and sponsors alike will approve of, otherwise they will have little chance to ever have their movies seen. I told them they were setting a huge precedent, but it was clear that they could not have cared less.
Unfortunately, I was proven right. A few days later, Hunter Todd, director of WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival, which had selected the film for its documentary closing night, sent me an email saying that his festival also had to withdraw its invitation. Hunter added that he had received “very threatening calls yesterday from high government officials in Houston (the first and only time they have ever called in 49 years)… Heavy-handed censorship to say the least… they both threatened severe action against the festival if we showed it… Their actions would have cost us more than $100,000 in grants.” In another email, he said that “[the officials] went to all our major sponsors… and even the private foundations that support us… I have never been threatened so strongly before, comparing this to Hitler’s propaganda films and worse…”
“Hitler’s propaganda films?” I thought that was interesting! I’ll come back to that later. I was not as upset with Hunter, who did what he could, had no choice and told us the truth. It is a totally different situation with Tribeca. To this point—even after Robert De Niro himself reversed his stance and said in a TODAY interview that it is a movie that people should see and that he pretty much regretted having been forced to pull if from the festival—Jane Rosenthal continues to argue that in fact Vaxxed‘s “de-selection” was due to an outcry from some filmmakers.
The filmmakers? Seriously? Well, that’s even a worse excuse than claiming it’s because of the sponsors. Everybody understands the power of money, but she is trying to make us believe that if filmmakers disagree with the film selection at a festival like Tribeca, that the festival will reverse its decision. I see that as the end of festivals as we know them and, of course, the end of free speech! That is censorship, pure and simple!
L-R: Director Andrew Wakefield, editor Brian Burrows and producer Del Bigtree review the data from the CDC Autism/MMR study in Vaxxed. Photograph by Andrew Debosz
Rosenthal’s statement makes very little sense apart from continuing a strategy that was started months ago. The first voice who came out screaming bloody murder about the selection of Vaxxed was the director Penny Lane (Our Nixon). The problem here is that Penny Lane has made only two feature-length films and both were financed by Tribeca Enterprises, the company that owns the Tribeca Film Festival. She came out with a vitriolic paper telling Tribeca—her prestigious financier—that they “made a very serious mistake,” after having judged the film solely on its trailer (Seriously! I hoped that filmmakers had more respect for each other’s work) and, deciding that the film presented “dangerous misinformation,” labeling its director an “anti-vaccination quack” who was “literally killing people.” Not only can she be sued for defamation and libel, but it is funny to get a lesson on ethics in filmmaking from someone who made a doc portraying Richard Nixon as an upstanding human being! More importantly, she asked Tribeca to “apologize… and cancel the screening.” Really? How could a filmmaker in her right mind so virulently attack her prestigious financier for selecting a film she didn’t even see? That makes no sense, of course. I suppose it might make sense if Tribeca Enterprises asked her to start such a campaign—but that’s pure speculation on my part…
A couple of interesting articles came up exploring the relationship that Tribeca Enterprises has with the pharmaceutical industry. TruthKings.com explained that the president of Tribeca Enterprises is Jonathan Cale Patricof, son of the very powerful venture capitalist Alan Patricof. Patricof senior is the founder of Apax partners which owns a company… that specializes in vaccines! Furthermore, Alan Patricof is the brother-in-law of none other than Jane Rosenthal.
The Sloan Foundation is one of the largest and first sponsors of the festival, as confirmed to us by Rosenthal and Weinstein on the phone. As Richard Gale and Gary Null point out in an article entitled “Why is the CDC Petrified of the Film Vaxxed?”: “A bigger smoking gun is the presence of Dr. Peter Kim, former president of Merck’s Research Laboratories… and Paul Offit.” Merck’s Research Laboratories is the company that holds the MMR vaccine patent and monopoly in the U.S. Offit has been described (by Mark Blaxill, editor-at-large for the website Age of Autism) as a “Merck-made millionaire, a determined propagandist for expanding the medical industry’s vaccine profit pool and an active opponent of the need to stop the autism epidemic in its tracks.” Kim and Offit, say Gale and Null, both “sit on the [Sloan] foundation’s board of trustees.” (They also add that “vaccine fanatic Bill Gates is also a contributor” to Tribeca.)
The Hollywood Reporter indeed enlisted the same Paul Offit to write a so-called review on Vaxxed, even after we explained to them that he could not be objective for the above reasons. Based on his analysis, I personally believe that Paul Offit never saw the film, since we refused to provide him with a screener. It is tragic that The Hollywood Reporter would compromise the concept of a reviewer like that.
A still from Vaxxed shows the Center for Disease Control and Preventions (CDC) headquarters
The whole thing goes even one step further. What was very interesting to us was to watch the whole scandal unfold. All the “negative articles” use the same language, sometimes word for word, from the by-now famous Penny Lane’s article—which was probably the result she was looking for—to Steven Zeitchik’s one in the Los Angeles Times and Eric Kohn’s at Indiewire.
The message is clear:
I will not address here all the accusations against, nor the framing of, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, dating back 18 years, which have been discussed many times before and that we have made available to all. Instead, I ask why all this negative publicity is clearly originating from the same voice? Again, let’s refer to Gale and Null, who reveal the existence of the “CDC’s sophisticated public relations and media operation. Tax dollars are spent to train journalists about framing medical news and articulately contest [sic] controversial stories that challenge the federal agencies’ and pharmaceutical industry’s national health and vaccine agenda.”
This is probably the worst part of this very sad story. Whoever put out the framing of this debate was powerful enough to place it in major magazines and newspapers with the same wording, and the same irresponsible comparisons, with no objection from these publications. Of course the fact that filmmakers, and a prestigious institution like Tribeca, would participate in such a “lynching” is extremely grave, as it outlines the limitless power of mega corporations. Since the festival censorship, our ads have also been censored by The Village Voice and a positive article was censored by The Huffington Post (now owned by AOL, so perhaps that’s no surprise). These great publications did not see the film… nor did they even ask to see it.
Filmmakers beware! Most of the large festivals depend on financial support from sponsors. And with the Tribeca precedent, it is clear that if sponsors don’t like a film, they can refuse its selection or, even worse, “de-select” it. In my heated conversation with the heads of Tribeca, I also asked them if they realized the responsibility they were taking on. Not only have they risked ruining the professional lives of the filmmakers who have invested years of time and their money to make this film, but they are now risking more than that on an even greater level. Let’s suppose, for the sake of discussion, that Dr. Wakefield and the hundreds of doctors who support him are right and that there is a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Furthermore, let’s suppose that Tribeca’s actions will serve to delay the CDC whistleblower’s testimony before Congress—such testimony being the ultimate goal of the film—by so many years. How many more children will be affected? How many more families will be destroyed?
That is the power of documentaries: to make a difference in the world! Let’s support the filmmakers who dedicate their lives to such an aspiration and to the festivals that give such voices a chance to be heard (or is it now time to create a “no-sponsors” film festival?). In this digital age, do we even need reviewers and film festivals? To counter all of these false accusations and negative publicity, we rushed the film into theaters, supported only by an immense grassroots community composed mainly of families with vaccine-injured children. And in New York and Los Angeles, most of the shows sold out before the film opened!
A display at the Laemmle Monica, showing sold-out screenings of Vaxxed
So, to finish on a positive note, let’s remember that our grassroots support is the number-one tool for a successful film release and that we should not let ourselves be intimidated by bullies, whomever they may be. As one Vaxxed audience member put it, “they tried to suppress a movie, instead they created a movement.”
For information on Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe, visit its official homepage.
Unlike many other magazines, MovieMaker is completely independent. We are hugely dependent on our readers for support to continue providing top-quality filmmaking guidance. If you liked this article, consider tipping us $1.
These actors quit while they were on top, following the old showbiz rule: Leave 'em…
As Shane Gillis prepares to his Saturday Night Live — which once fired him before…
Some old scary movies don't feel scary anymore. Here are 12 exceptions.
Watching the Ryan Gosling action film The Fall Guy, one thing stands out: The lack…
These seven horror remakes tried to improve on movies that were quite good to begin…
The “Judgment Day” episode of the 3 Body Problem contains one of the most harrowing…
View Comments
I had never heard of a movie being censored like this. But it turns out this may be a new trend in corporatocracy. A movie called "The Syndrome" accepted at a Minnessota film festival where the festival was pressured to pull it. This festival stood firm and did not pull it. The documentary follows a group of medical experts who are proving shaken baby syndrome does not exist and there are over 1,000 people in prison for a made up syndrome that can actually be explained by numerous other condition.
You are right...such a dangerous precedent.
That's an interesting comparison and I'm glad you mentioned it because I'm going to look up that film now. I have been keeping up with that topic for some time now and am baffled by the lack of skepticism of the medical profession toward shaken baby syndrome. They are putting parents in jail and/of taking away their parental rights on children with broken bones or brain bleeds who have absolutely no external bruising. The situation is not unlike what we are seeing here with the censorship of this movie...the willful disregard of evidence and the unwillingness to consider alternative explanations. These issues are far from settled. Obviously if people actually read Wakefield's original paper in question they would be disabused of the beliefs instilled in them by the media of what he allegedly did but actually didn't do. Likewise, if they would actually see the film Vaxxed and consider the evidence they might consider the notion that those who control our media, the medical industry, and our government often do not have the best interests of the people and our children at heart.
"These issues are far from settled. Obviously if people actually read Wakefield’s original paper in question they would be disabused of the beliefs instilled in them by the media of what he allegedly did but actually didn’t do. Likewise, if they would actually see the film Vaxxed and consider the evidence they might consider the notion that those who control our media, the medical industry, and our government often do not have the best interests of the people and our children at heart."
I've read the paper. I know the film. Gone over it multiple times.
I've also checked Wakefield's claims, from his papers, his public statements and his film. I've read the transcripts of the hearings where he (rightfully) lost his medical license. In those hearings they went over in great detail how unethical Wakefield was in his original paper.
All I can say is anyone who has any experience with Wakefield should be checking every single statement he makes.
Of course, Wakefield doesn't let people do that. He doesn't release the William Thompson documents. He doesn't provide critics with screener DVD's.
And, to be blunt, his supporters don't seem to ever check his claims.
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome as well, can be caused by the poisonous adjuvants in vaccines.
Keep in mind the fight is for accountability and safe vaccines. Allowing it to be framed as "anti-vax" is the danger.
"I had never heard of a movie being censored like this. "
Let's see. Wakefield pulled strings with De Niro to get the film into Tribeca outside of the usual approval process.
De Niro and others pull the film, that shouldn't have been there anyway.
Wakefield shows the film publicly.
What in that is censorship?
Hahaha, Wakefield pulled strings with DeNiro?! Pray tell, what clout has one of the most vilified men on the planet with zero connection to Hollywood got with a hugely successful movie star? Matt, your slip is showing. You just keep parroting the same nonsense over and over and over again. How many comments have you left here saying the exact same thing, ten? Give it up! ONE comment inviting people to your site would be fine, your obsessive trolling just makes you look desperate and is obvious damage control. Give. It. Up.
My slip is showing?
De Niro stated that he was the one who put the film into Tribeca. De Niro wanted people to see it so he put it in.
De Niro's wife knows Wakefield. Here's a discussion of recent email exchanges between them
http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2016/04/paging-de-niro-and-hightowerwakefield.html
Wakefield had an in with De Niro's wife.
And the source of those emails is a site that Wakefield has chosen in the past to use release information.
So, yeah, pulling strings to get into Tribeca.
Witnessing the complete rape of culture by corporate globalists is like that awkward post-apocalyptic moment of watching a herd of goats eat a Van Gogh. The Bill of Rights, freedom of speech, freedom of the press? Munch, munch, munch.
I find the vaccine controversy interesting from the perspective that the issue is the perfect emotional hostage taker. They're "saving little children" after all, protecting life as we know it. What offense or assault on basic rights couldn't be rammed through by using that heroic tagline as the opening wedge? It's a tephlon gimmick, like the "war on terror."
The film "Vaxxed" is a public health menace. Its false information puts the health and lives of children at risk.
Would you show a film today that claims AIDS is caused by the oral polio vaccine? I doubt it. But that would be the same thing.
Of course you have not seen the film.
There is an autism epidemic of drastic proportions, children and their families lives ruined.
And you spend your time helping Pharma make more money.
Shame
"Of course you have not seen the film."
What do you want to know about it? What specifically? Have you seen it? Bring up a scene and let's discuss?
Or is it just "no one but Wakefield supporters can discuss the film"?
Linda, Your ignorance is evident in your response. DID YOU EVEN READ THE ARTICLE???? Just an FYI, it is not false information, and it is not a public health menace. It is a movie about the CDC falsifying data that affects every child in this country and beyond. The false information does not come from the film, it comes from the CDC. Do you even care that the CDC is lying to the American people???? And the RN by your name, not impressed. Just one more health professional educated by the pharmaceutical industry who repeats what they were taught. I am also a health professional, but thank God I learned how to think for myself and question the "truths" that were sold me to as education by corporations.
" DID YOU EVEN READ THE ARTICLE???? "
I did. Also gone over the film in detail. Also gone over the transcripts of the calls between Brian Hooker and William Thompson. Also gone over the documents Thompson provided to Representative Bill Posey.
the film is bogus. It's largely a vehicle to try to exhonerate Wakefield, and it's not very good at it.
So, what in the Thompson documents did you find particularly troubling? You wouldn't be so vehement in your comment if you hadn't gone through them, would you?
LindaRosaRN,
You are the public health menace. You have not seen this film. Let me fill you in: The film is about a whistleblower in the CDC Immunization Safety Division whose conscience motivated him to contact scientist Brian Hooker to confess that he and his colleagues had falsified vaccine safety research going back more than a decade, covering evidence of a link between the MMR and autism in children receiving the vaccine before the age of 36 months, with the highest number of cases among black boys (although there were many among previously normally developing children of other races). Dr. Thompson has official whistleblower status and Congress is IGNORING the fact that he has turned over 1000's of documents to Florida Congressman William Posey, who has begged his colleagues to call a formal hearing for Thompson to testify. It is biologically plausible that the MMR could cause severe damage in some children. It is a combination of 3 live attenuated viruses that was never tested as a combination drug before being approved for use. As just one possible explanation: The CDC acknowledges that about 5% of children that receive the MMR will not mount an immune response. That's why a second shot is recommended between age 4-6, to catch the ones who didn't respond the first time. LindaRose, what do you think happens to those 3 live viruses (that the vaccine manufacturer admits in the package insert COULD cause disease in the immune compromised) in the body of a child that does not mount an immune response? Let me help you - the vaccine strain of the measles virus has been found (by many investigators and physicians going back almost two decades) in the intestines of autistic children presenting with severe bowel disease. The vaccine defending medical community says - so what? Sound right to you? Wild measles is most serious in a young child, so it is not at all far fetched to find that the live vaccine strain, especially combined with two other wild viruses (and many other vaccines that children get at the same time as the MMR - see the ever expanding vaccine schedule) could cause the same type of serious sequelae (or worse) than the wild infection. And about polio vaccine, it was contaminated with monkey viruses, the most famous being the one that the medical community named, simiam virus 40 (SV40). Upon discovery I believe in the early 1960s, the scientific community decided without scientific basis that the virus was harmless in humans and didn't stop the vaccine from being given to millions of Americans. SV40 is still turning up in cancerous tumors generations later (the virus apparently can be passed from mother to child). True story. The fact that SV40 contaminated polio vaccines was reported to the public on the CDC site. That page has been taken down. Educate yourself and do your job in being a patient advocate. You should see this movie and find out what is wrong in the CDC and their corrupt relationship with Pharma. If you don't, you should lose your license to practice, because you are a menace to society. Every day that Congress and the media and the medical and nursing professions turn their back on this whistleblower is another day that thousands of innocent children are put in harms way. And since this one study is known to be fraudulent, it is clear that no research that comes out of the CDC can be trusted. The validity of all vaccine safety research is now in question. Wake up and do your job.
Pretty easy to see through your arguments. You are part of the established medical community with billions of dollars at stake when the truth comes out. It would cost the pharma industry loss of revenue and they are busy hiring medical professionals now to hush up the evidence.
Do hope you have received enough compensation to sooth your conscience.
"You have not seen this film."
How do you know? Do you know this individual? Have you followed that individual around?
" Let me help you – the vaccine strain of the measles virus has been found (by many investigators and physicians going back almost two decades) in the intestines of autistic children presenting with severe bowel disease."
No, it hasn't.
Wakefield made that claim. Wakefield buried data from his own group that showed this wasn't the case. The same researcher (Nicholas Chadwick) showed that the results Wakefield did publish were bogus.
Wakefield had another paper, with a lab in Ireland. That lab was later shown to be so flawed in it's methodology that it was impossible for it to detect measles virus (they weren't changing RNA measles into a DNA before doing the DNA amplification). That was shown clearly by Stephen Bustin, perhaps the world's foremost expert on the methodology.
Later, once that lab (O'learly's Unigentics lab) cleaned up their lab and methodologies, they were used in a multisite test of Wakefield's ideas. Even Wakefield's own colleague found that Wakefield was wrong.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0003140
Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study
LindaRosaRN: Have you seen the film? What false information does it contain? I suspect you haven't seen it, for the bulk of the information it presents are official Centers for Disease Control and Prevention documents. These documents indeed show falsification of data to hide a strong signal showing that the timing of the MMR is critical to avoid the worst adverse events from it, and a cover-up of this crime, something that every honorable person in the nation should be deeply concerned about, and has every right under our hallowed Constitution to know about.
" I suspect you haven’t seen it, for the bulk of the information it presents are official Centers for Disease Control and Prevention documents."
I suspect you haven't seen it because that's not the bulk of the film. Heck, even the parts about Thompson aren't really about the documents.
"These documents indeed show falsification of data to hide a strong signal showing that the timing of the MMR is critical to avoid the worst adverse events from it, and a cover-up of this crime"
Have you read the documents? I have. I made them public. Wakefield didn't. Doesn't that strike you as odd? If they are so damning, why didn't he make them public?
I can't explain the why, but I can say that the documents don't say what Wakefield has claimed.
I'm making an educated guess here and saying that you haven't watched the movie, so actually have no idea what it's about.
The movie is about potential cover-up and corruption at the CDC.
But, let's ignore what it has to say because it could "harm public perception in the CDC and the vaccination program."
Hey...maybe we should have ignored all of the cover-up and corruption of President Nixon during the Watergate scandal because it may have harmed the public's perception of the presidency...
"I’m making an educated guess here and saying that you haven’t watched the movie, so actually have no idea what it’s about."
Have you seen it? Which scene(s) in particular did you find most prove your point that "the movie is about potential cover-up and corruption at the CDC".
I'd be willing to discuss that with you. In detail. With quotes from the film.
LindaRosaRN: my daughter, too, is a nurse who has seen the damage caused too many times. You have a vested interested, as does she, but she is heartbroken over the choices she is going to have to make having seen the real damage that happens immediately after children are vaccinated.
How is this a public health menace? It is not anti vaccine. They have all said many times that they are pro vaccine. This movie is about corruption at the CDC and how they falsified data in a study. Why don't you see it and then comment.
LindaRosaRN, did you actually read the article?
Have you witnessed the effect of regressive Autism in a baby before?
I have. My son has autism, he is now 7 years old, he wears a diaper, he has limited language, his motor skill is restricted. His future is not the same as other young boys.
5 years ago my son was diagnosed with Autism, then it was was 1:200 or 1:100 and the same reasons were given for the rise in numbers. We just spot more Autisic kids these days. Now years years on, its 1:50, and the same reason is give, we just spot more kids these days. Nonsense.
My son's development flat lined for 5 years. His immune system collapsed (+20 rounds of antibiotics in 5 years after diagnosis), he developed Epilepsy, he developed Gastrointestinal problems. For a 12 months, he woke every time screaming. I would have to hold him for 10-30mins until he stopped. The answer to al of this = oh that's just Autism.
What caused this?
We don't know. We suspect, immuno-compromisation brought on by viral/bacterial load possibly caused by toxicity from multiple vaccines.
WE ARE NOT SAYING THIS IS THE CAUSE, WE ARE SAYING IT MIGHT BE.
THE FILM SAYS THE SAME. THE FILM IS NOT ANTI-VACCINE. YET EVERYONE IN THE MEDIA SAYS IT IS. WHY IS THIS? ASK YOURSELF THAT QUESTION.
Here's another question. Why can't i give my son a decongestant until he is 6 years old, but i can give him multiple viral loads, on the same day, without even checking to see if he is unwell at the time of inoculation.
We only want more exploration to see if there is an answer in there, and maybe another child might not be robbed of their future.
My advice, see the film and make your own mind up. Then post.
Don't form an opinion from reading the 'press'.
R
"WE ARE NOT SAYING THIS IS THE CAUSE, WE ARE SAYING IT MIGHT BE"
Wakefield *is* saying it is the cause.
Wakefield is wrong.
Wakefield's own words about the film show it's based on a bogus premise. But we can't comment?
https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2016/04/21/why-do-people-have-to-see-vaxxed-to-criticize-it-wakefields-own-description-of-us-tells-us-vaxxed-is-bogus/
Good thing I know what's in the film then.
Wakefield is not saying it is the cause he is saying it is a cause, and he is not alone (give or take a little bureaucratic doublespeak). Here is Julie Gerberding before she took the revolving door to Merck's vaccine division on CNN:
“Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/29/hcsg.01.html
And here are HHS HRSA officials talking to journalists Sharyl Attkisson and David Kirby on different occasions:
"The government has never compensated, nor has it ever been ordered to compensate, any case based on a determination that autism was actually caused by vaccines. We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures."
http://web.archive.org/web/20101106061707/http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20016356-10391695.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-david-kirby/vaccine-court-autism-deba_b_169673.html
"Wakefield is not saying it is the cause he is saying it is a cause"
He's wrong. And he's saying it's a major cause, a driving force behind the so-called epidemic.
But you already know that.
Wow, David Kirby. PR man for the thimerosal causation idea. Funny how as that idea became obviously false he faded away. If he had guts he'd have apologized for the harm he caused. But courage is something distinctly lacking in your movement. And honesty. And integrity.
Not once has Philippe Diaz acknowledged the legitimate concerns expressed by filmmaker Todd Drezner whose film, "Loving Lampposts" is distributed by Cinema Libre Studio.
I am reposting that open letter now for the benefit of all to see:
Cinema Libre Studio and “Vaxxed”
Todd Drezner·Wednesday, March 30, 2016
.
Dear Cinema Libre,
I’m writing to explain why I’m so disappointed in your decision to distribute “Vaxxed.” I have three main objections:
1) Perhaps of most relevance to Cinema Libre is that Andrew Wakefield has assembled his film using unethical and dishonest editing techniques. As documented here, the “Vaxxed” trailer splices excerpts from two different phone calls together and then inserts a narrator giving an interpretation of those calls that is not supported by the facts. And this is merely one example from a brief trailer. Who knows how many misleading edits Wakefield has made in the full film?
Given Cinema Libre’s commitment to the idea that documentaries can make a social impact, I would think you would want to be associated with filmmakers who follow ethical practices and journalistic standards when making documentaries. When a dishonest filmmaker like Wakefield receives distribution and a theatrical release, it undermines all documentary filmmakers. We depend on the trust of our audiences. Your decision to support a dishonest film like “Vaxxed” destroys that trust. Documentary filmmaker Penny Lane outlines these issues nicely here.
2) Cinema Libre’s blog post about “Vaxxed” refers to “the suppression of medical data by a governmental agency that may well be contributing to a significant health crisis.” This is, I’m sorry to say, no more than a fever dream. First, as you will remember from watching “Loving Lampposts,” the autism “epidemic” can be explained by a combination of changing diagnostic criteria, increasing awareness of autism, and the benefits of receiving a diagnosis (in terms of the access to services and support the diagnosis provides).
Secondly, the CDC “whistleblower” around whom the trailer (and I assume the film) revolves did not reveal anything nearly as sinister as the trailer suggests. It is true that William Thompson of the CDC revealed to Dr. Brian Hooker that a 2004 study of the possible link between the MMR vaccine and autism supposedly found an association between the vaccine and autism in African American males.
Before I say anything about that finding, let’s note what that finding rules out: any association between the MMR vaccine and any other group besides African American males. Even if Thompson’s assertion were true (it’s not), it still doesn’t support the idea that the MMR vaccine causes autism in the many people who are not African American males.
But what about the supposed link between the vaccine and African American males? It’s nothing. Basically, the original study of the association between the vaccine and autism did not leave out African Americans on purpose. Rather, it did so to eliminate “confounders” — that is, any factor other than the vaccine that could have been associated with autism. The authors of the study wanted to be sure that any effect they saw was caused by the MMR and not something else. Dr. Hooker’s “re-analysis” of the study does not account for confounders properly and even if it did, the population of African American males in the study is too small to support any broad conclusions. And one more time, even if the supposed link between African American males and the MMR vaccine were significant, it still rules out any link between the vaccine and all other groups. You can read about these issues in much more detail here and here.
It’s well known that Andrew Wakefield’s research into the MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. His film is based on equally poor science.
3) Despite Richard Castro’s statement on your blog that the Tribeca Film Festival succumbed to “pressure to censor” “Vaxxed,” there was no censorship. As I’m sure you’re aware, the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech prohibits the government from restricting speech. The Tribeca Film Festival is not government. It is a private organization that is free to screen, or not screen, any film it chooses for any reason. Indeed, Tribeca rejects the work of thousands of filmmakers every year. I’m sure Cinema Libre rejects many filmmakers as well. Are they being censored? Of course not.
On the “Vaxxed” website, Andrew Wakefield and Producer Del Bigtree claim that they were “denied due process” when Tribeca decided not to screen “Vaxxed." This is absurd. There is no such thing as due process when it comes to the decisions of a film festival selection committee. Nor should there be. If such a thing existed, every prestigious film festival would spend all its time sifting through complaints from unhappy filmmakers. There will always be unhappy filmmakers who are denied admission to film festivals. Andrew Wakefield is now one of them. But he is not a censored filmmaker.
On a personal note, I was and remain grateful for the work Cinema Libre did to promote “Loving Lampposts” when it was released. You got the film screened at venues I could not have and publicized it through news coverage I did not have access to. I hoped and believed that along the way, you came to appreciate the film’s message that autistic people can thrive when they are accepted and when they receive the support they need to function in a world not built for them. Apparently, and much to my dismay, this message did not sink in.
By releasing “Vaxxed,” Cinema Libre is actively harming thousands of autistic people. While we should be discussing ways to best support autistic people and help them lead fulfilling lives, you would instead have us follow a discredited scientist and dishonest filmmaker down a rabbit hole that leads only to long debunked conspiracy theories. I am profoundly disappointed.
I don’t expect that Cinema Libre will change its decision. But given our long business relationship, I felt I owed you this explanation of where I stand. I hope that sometime in the future you may find ways to undo the damage you are about to cause.
You can see the text, including the links posted here:
http://www.thinkingautismguide.com/2016/03/todd-drezners-open-letter-to-cinema.html
As a doctor and academic and as a mother with children damaged by vaccines, it is shameful to see this issue not being aired.
Doctors are terrified of speaking out or even doing research on this issue as it would be effectively the end of their careers if they dared to find anything vaccine related which was linked to autism.
Interestingly vaccines used on babies (the triple) have autism as a possible vaccine linked issue on the piece of paper which comes with the vaccine!!!
Alternatively if you don't mind not knowing what causes autism then this is fine. But don't come crying to doctors or anyone if your child or grandchild ends up with autism. You will be on your own, and so will the poor kids stuck with this awful problem.
We despirately need filmmakers who are brave enough to take on these issues. Well done Wakefield!
Philippe Diaz: Thank you from the bottom of my heart for this timely, essential, and truly fine call to action. I am in my seventh decade, and I cannot recall a time when a subject was completely censored by the entire media, when the public was not allowed to question a government policy. As Dr. Thompson said in one of the phone calls to Dr. Hooker, “They are paralyzed.” They are paralyzed, in part, because they know they will be going to jail, in part because they, like all of us, learned at their mother’s knee the difference between right and wrong, what was once called conscience. They still retain a modicum of that, but fear of the unknown suppresses it. As for the media, the only applicable word is cowardice. They are nothing more than an advertising circular for corporate interests. As for our President and Congress, it is cowardice all the way around. They know that the CDC (with help from the FDA, EPA, and USDA) has created the autism epidemic, yet they act as if it doesn’t exist. This is simply the most shameful time our nation has experienced in my lifetime. The filmmakers and you deserve honors and awards for bringing greater public awareness to this, the greatest crisis our nation has ever faced.
I won't waste my time arguing with internet trolls screaming "science"... But I do want to applaud Phillipe Diaz for so eloquently presenting the facts of this dire situation.
As a mother who has vaccinated my child, I still demand transparency and the highest standard of medical ethics. I was at the front lines of the SB277 fiasco in California trying to preserve my right to choose, and I encountered too many vaccine injured children to turn a blind eye.
And these are not Autistic children I'm referring to. Even if you took Autism completely out of the equation, parents need to have the right to evaluate when and how many shots would be right for their individual child. Not all children are the same and no child should be considered "collateral damage" for the good of all.
. As documented here, the “Vaxxed” trailer splices excerpts from two different phone calls together and then inserts a narrator giving an interpretation of those calls that is not supported by the facts. "
Really? Have you spoken to Thompson?
Perhaps he needs to make a statement to clear things up.
"Really? Have you spoken to Thompson?"
No, but we have the transcripts of the phone calls.
So, you can check the transcripts against the trailer--and the film---and see where his statements are edited, spliced and taken out of context.
And they are.
We also now have the film.
Del Bigtree was the narrator. Even his comment in the trailer is edited.
In the trailer we hear that a CDC whistleblower is going to come forward and tell us vaccines cause autism and the CDC knows this (paraphrased--I'll get you the exact quote if you need it).
So we are led to believe that's what the film is about.
But that's not what Bigtree said. He said he got a phone call telling him that a CDC whistleblower...
See what they did there? they cut out the "I got a phone call" part and made it seem like the film would be all about this supposedly big event.
Which itself was bogus--Thompson has stated that the study doesn't show a true association betweeen the MMR and autism (or autism-like symptoms as he says in the statement).
Vaxxed is selling itself on a bunch of bogus premises.
"Thompson has stated that the study doesn’t show a true association betweeen the MMR and autism (or autism-like symptoms as he says in the statement)"
No he didn't. Thompson clearly said that he is ashamed when he sees children with autism because he knows that he has been part of the problem. He clearly said that his boss asked him to lie. He clearly said that his superiors wanted to hide damning data that linked the MMR to autism and that he can't believe that he went along with it. For every second that this fraud goes uninvestigated millions of children worldwide are put at risk. By lying and trying to distort the facts and defending criminals you are an accessory to a horrific crime. How do you live with yourself Matt Carey?
"Thompson clearly said that he is ashamed when he sees children with autism because he knows that he has been part of the problem. He clearly said that his boss asked him to lie. He clearly said that his superiors wanted to hide damning data that linked the MMR to autism and that he can’t believe that he went along with it."
Nobody can speak to why Thompson feels anything he feels, but in his statement he said - correctly - that what he is concerned about doesn't show an association. Please read the statement.
Reading the documents really doesn't show a valid link to be hidden, or any concealment of data.
Big picture wise. It's probably better to cover up a little autism for the good of the program. We can't have people flocking away from vaccines.
So it makes sense to want to kind of sweep the autism link under the rug. I mean, I can definitely see the strong desire to do so and a perfectly understandable rationale for keeping the general population in the dark.
Please tell me you are joking.