Slashdot Mirror
Tribeca Film Festival, Robert De Niro Pull Anti-Vaccination Film
theodp writes: USA Today reports that one day after defending the scheduled screening of a controversial documentary linking vaccinations to autism, Tribeca Film Festival co-founder Robert De Niro announced that the film is being pulled from the event. The film, Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe, was scheduled to debut April 24. It is directed by Andrew Wakefield, known to many as the father of the anti-vaccine movement. Wakefield authored a 1998 report on vaccinations and autism that was later retracted, He also had his medical license revoked. The decision to include the film in the festival resulted in outrage from many who are upset that the film's inclusion could offer legitimacy to a study debunked by leading scientists. "My intent in screening this film was to provide an opportunity for conversation around an issue that is deeply personal to me and my family," said De Niro, who has a child with autism. "But after reviewing it over the past few days with the Tribeca Film Festival team and others from the scientific community, we do not believe it contributes to or furthers the discussion I had hoped for."
So what's the take away here. Do I take health care advice from movie actors or not. If the answer is yes then what about clowns and mimes?
One would have to be certifiably insane to get a flu shot.
Because doing a wide-ranging statistical analysis on something as wide-ranging as "Autism," which is a diagnosis and not a particular disorder, usually results in findings like this:
http://tylervigen.com/spurious...
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
I assume the reason that you were modded up
You assume incorrectly.
If you click on "(Score:1)" in his comment, you'll find it's a link that pops up a window with a list of the moderation done on the comment. In this case, it will pop up a message that says "No comment history available" because it hasn't been modded at all (at least not at the time that I'm posting this comment).
If you're going to accuse someone of modding their own comments up, you should at least do it in response to a comment that's actually been modded up.
I thought this was supposed to be a tech news site....in the past weeks....since dice took over...it's only mainstream crap...and wasn't expecting this from timothy.... maybe from that manishs guy...
The anti-vaccine issue is about science. About how some idiots will reject it, and endanger their children's lives.
Anti-vaxxers are just one teeny little step away from being the people who refuse to give their diabetic children insulin on religious grounds.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Vaccines contain adjuvants and preservatives. The preservatives prevent bacterial growth, since you wouldn't want to inject a toxic bacterial culture (which happened before stuff like thimerosal was used). Adjuvants induce a localised inflammatory response to increase the effect of the immune system against the virus you're innoculating against. Without it, it would have reduced efficacy, or maybe no effect at all. So the reason for their presence is absolutely logical, and was determined by empirical testing to quantify exactly how much was needed, after it was determined that they *were* needed.
You're right that these aren't "nice" things. But they *are* necessary. Like everything there's a tradeoff. In this case, the toxicity of the preservatives and adjuvant against toxic bacterial growth and then benefit of the immunity to viral infection, respectively. Given the tiny amounts used, the negative effect is absolutely minor, and it will mostly get flushed out of the body within a short time. Note that they have not been shown to be harmful. Given that the tradeoff for some of these vaccines is chosing not to have brain damage, die, or suffer other long-term debilitating consequences, any negatives from the preservatives and adjuvants are greatly outweighed. Put it this way: if vaccines did cause autism as claimed by this fraud (which they don't, but let's pretend it's true), then it would *still be worth vaccinating everyone*. Why? Because the tiny chance you would get autism pales in comparison with the ~1/1000 chance of death from measles, and the still higher chance of long-term disability or serious complications. The numbers don't lie. Even if these charlatans were correct, vaccination would still be the correct choice every single time.
Do you really think that the people developing the vaccines would add this stuff for the hell of it, or not be fully aware of the risks involved? Thimerosal usage has been greatly reduced or dropped entirely in response to public hysteria. But it can only be done in the first world where you can manufacture and distribute the vaccine in bulk for immediate usage, since it can no longer be stored. In the third world, or for less commonly-used vaccines, it's still used. And that's still absolutely fine.
As for flu vaccines, like all vaccines they use dead or attenuated virus. Of course it makes you "sick"; having a mild infection (or at least the effects of an infection without actually being infected) and consequently developing an immune response to it is the *entire point* of the vaccine. The attenuation means it's not going to spread significantly in your body or to others, but it *is* sufficient to develop an immune response. Then you'll be protected when a real infection hits you.
If you're honestly asking the question, I can only presume you missed out on all of the statistics and biology classes you were ever required to take.
But in case you needed a reminder:
1) "Getting sick" does not necessarily mean "becoming infected with influenza." Many common colds manifest symptoms that are very similar to influenza. It's possible your coworkers mis-diagnosed themselves.
2) The flu vaccine developed each flu season is based on the expected mutations of the virus for the upcoming season. Since mutations are less predictable, the vaccine has a chance to match the season's flu strains poorly, well, or somewhere in the middle. If it matches poorly, more people get infected with influenza.
3) Looking at a small sample size - your coworkers - is a poor indication of the population-level efficacy of the vaccine. Influenza can be deadly to elderly, infants, and immuno-compromised individuals. If the influenza vaccine lowers the overall number of deaths each season by a statistically significant number, it is successful - regardless of whether your local pocket of coworkers were all infected or not.
His study was a joke, so bad that even a fifth grader could see it was designed to prove him the answer he wanted.
But oh no, it's all Big Pharma...
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
How about: The Disneyland outbreak was in fact localized in the unvaccinated (or those whose status was undocumented.)
"Among the 110 California patients, 49 (45%) were unvaccinated; five (5%) had 1 dose of measles-containing vaccine, seven (6%) had 2 doses, one (1%) had 3 doses, 47 (43%) had unknown or undocumented vaccination status, and one (1%) had immunoglobulin G seropositivity documented, which indicates prior vaccination or measles infection at an undetermined time.
"Twelve of the unvaccinated patients were infants too young to be vaccinated. Among the 37 remaining vaccine-eligible patients, 28 (67%) were intentionally unvaccinated because of personal beliefs, and one was on an alternative plan for vaccination.
"Among the 28 intentionally unvaccinated patients, 18 were children (aged http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...
"Ruthlessly pursuing the idea that the accordion is just another instrument."
Proper science doesn't censor incorrect results, it lets them speak for themselves.
Proper science is conducted in scientific journals, not through bad propaganda films.
The problem with this comparison is that the merits of Guantanamo Bay can be debated. There is no merit or truth to the anti-vaxxer position.
Yeah, I'm a little leery of censorship.
This is NOT censorship. The vaxers have a right to speak. They do NOT have a right to be given a forum at a private event. You are not being censored if I refuse to promote your cause.
You're confusing "censorship" with "first amendment violation." This is not the latter, but it most certainly is the former. A private party is not required to allow the airing of an idea--I think we can all agree that there is no problem with that. But the case we're talking about is specifically banning a movie based on the fact that many people find the point it makes to be objectionable. This is the very definition of censorship.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
I mean is it really so hard top understand that it's government who is supposed to be forbidden from censorship. It's not a difficult concept, but people fail to comprehend it all the time.
The thing people fail to comprehend all the time is the idea that only the government is prevented from allowing you to exercise your right of free speech. In this instance, the event is censoring this film, because of public backlash against the idea. They're perfectly free to censor the film, of course, and I fully support their right to do so, but just because it's a private venue doesn't magically make it "not censorship."
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?