Anti-vax film screening slammed


AMA head calls on film festival director to pull screening in Victoria in the interest of public health

Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe, directed by discredited former gastroenterologist and medical researcher Andrew Wakefield, will be screened on Saturday 8 October in Castlemaine, Victoria.

Vaxxed alleges a cover-up by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of a purported link between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism.

It is part of a lineup chosen for the Castlemaine Local and International Film Festival (CLIFF) by creative director David Thrussell.

Wakefield was struck off the British medical register in 2010 after being found guilty of “serious professional misconduct” while carrying out research into a possible link between MMR vaccine, bowel disease and autism.

In response, Australian Medical Association president Dr Michael Gannon is calling for the film to be pulled from the small festival.

When asked why, Dr Gannon responds that the director – who he claims is an ex-colleague – has been “entirely discredited” and his documentary shouldn’t be screened.

“Not when it’s made by a charlatan, not when it’s made by someone who’s been entirely discredited by the scientific world, the medical world, someone who was struck off the medical register for having harmed people and been seen as being a danger to the community,” says Dr Gannon.

“That’s not the kind of person I’d be getting my scientific information from.”

Dr Gannon asks festival director Thrussell to reconsider pulling the film in the interests of public health and safety.

“I think that film festivals are a wonderful bit of art and part of their job is to challenge us and to be edgy, and occasionally seek controversy. But I would say to him that even small pockets of people who choose not to vaccinate their children, there is a cost to be had there,” says Dr Gannon.

“One, two, three per cent reductions in vaccination rates harm children. They put them in intensive care, they kill them. This is not scare-mongering. It is so important to maintain vaccination rates well above 90%. It’s irresponsible to do anything that might threaten the public’s health.”

This is not the first time Wakefield’s documentary has come under scrutiny.

Tribeca Film Festival co-founder Robert De Niro, whose son has autism, had initially included the film in the festival but ended up cutting it from the lineup due to widespread pressure.

“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,” De Niro said in a statement.

“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.”

CLIFF is so far standing by its decision, describing the film as “timely and acutely controversial” and asking audiences to “see the film and make-up your own mind”.

Previous CAMs: meeting consumer needs
Next World news wrapup: 22 September 2016

NOTICE: It can sometimes take awhile for comment submissions to go through, please be patient.

121 Comments

  1. Irwin
    22/09/2016

    The film is about a whistleblower from the Centre for Disease Control and prevention who came forward with information regarding a vaccine cover-up. Keeping that in mind, Dr Gannon is wrong to say pulling it is in the interest of public health and safety. On the contrary, in the interest of public health and safety, what went on at the CDC should be told.

  2. pagophilus
    22/09/2016

    1. It’s not an anti-vaccine film and Andrew Wakefield is not anti-vaccine.
    2. It exposes research misdeeds.
    3. Andrew Wakefield’s research was not “debunked”. It was dismissed on what we would call technicalities.
    Watch and make your own decision.

    • angela coral eisenhauer
      24/09/2016

      Hi, can you help me here, is reasonable hank, a researcher, as he seems to be the one on Jill Hennesssys PR team, doing her twitter posts?

    • Proponent
      24/09/2016

      pagophilus: “1. It’s not an anti-vaccine film and Andrew Wakefield is not anti-vaccine.”

      And yet.. on the Quaxxed website, under Updates > Vaccine Discussion.. we have this from Andy..

      Notes on Herd Immunity from Andrew Wakefield

      As well as..

      “Your bodies are owned by Big Pharma,” he said. “It’s turning into a science-fiction movie.” The audience gasped and shook their heads in disbelief. “This will be the end of the United States of America.” During the Q&A portion, Wakefield added, “This is a deliberate eugenics program, a deliberate population-control program.”

      (Source: Popular Mechanics | “I Went on a Weeklong Cruise For Conspiracy Theorists. It Ended Poorly. )

      … …

      pagophilus: “3. Andrew Wakefield’s research was not “debunked”. It was dismissed on what we would call technicalities.”

      Erhm.. are you being serious here?

    • shay simmons
      24/09/2016

      “It exposes research misdeeds”
      Like taking bribes, conducting unapproved research and lying about it, and failing to report a conflict of interest?

  3. kingswaycompounding
    22/09/2016

    We are treading a dangerous path when censorship is advocated over any opposing view of our status quo. We live in a democracy I hope. Dr. Gannon may like to read the Universal declaration of Human Rights…
    Article 19.
    Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
    Article 27.
    (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
    (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

    • angela coral eisenhauer
      24/09/2016

      Is it significant that the Victorian Health minister, posts on her official twitter page at 9.00pm, but the source seems to be from a reasonable hank? is he a researcher for Australian Health or something? on her official PR team, it is confusing, he doesn’t sound like he is a reliable source?

      • Then feel free to refute what he claims. Please include your sources. Thanks.

        • Michael McCarthy
          24/09/2016

          Oh brother. The troll formerly known as ang, phlebotomist and whatever other socks is now posting using a guest account. Be afraid, be very afraid. She’s crazier than Cia.

          • JoeFarmer
            24/09/2016

            Oh Dear Lord…Didn’t she also claim to have run a pathology lab, too, but it turned out she was really just a florist or something like that?

          • Sonja Henie
            24/09/2016

            Yes!

          • JoeFarmer
            24/09/2016

            She is crazier than a shaved mule in a toboggan race.

          • Michael McCarthy
            24/09/2016

            She claimed lots of things. teacher, chemist, phlebotomist, microbiologist, etc. The one she never claimed was the truth, florist.

          • Mike Stevens
            24/09/2016

            Exactly. She said she was a “pathologist” and that she “ran a pathology laboratory”, yet it turns out she was part time phlebotomist there for a spell. Between sessions of flower arranging, presumably.

          • Michael McCarthy
            25/09/2016

            This was more along the line of her claims:
            I’m a chemist. No, wait, I meant teacher. Whoops, I should have said microbiologist. No, no, I really meant pathologist. Sorry, that should say phlebotomist. Ok, Ok, I had to stop doing all of those things because the SSRI’s they gave me when I was pregnant caused my baby to be born with half a heart and then it took me 12 years to stop taking them and I became a horticulturalist. Sorry, I mean I run an online florist. Visit my page!!

      • Did she retweet? You do know how that works?

      • I am Jill Hennessy. And so is my wife.

        • Venerable Bead
          24/09/2016

          Everybody’s Elvis!

          • shay simmons
            24/09/2016

            No, Spartacus!

    • angela coral eisenhauer
      24/09/2016

      Dr Gannon, now umm, is he a previous health minister or something? who is he? Is he a microbiologist, immunologist, or what? Who is he?

      • Mike Stevens
        24/09/2016

        A florist, maybe?

        • JoeFarmer
          24/09/2016

          Snort!

          • AutismDadd
            24/09/2016

            whoot whoot

          • JoeFarmer
            24/09/2016

            Thanks for proving once again that your kid is messed up because you are messed up.

          • AutismDadd
            25/09/2016

            Well Pharmer if that’s evidence of that to you, nothing you say can have merit.

      • AutismDadd
        24/09/2016

        Janitor

    • Proponent
      24/09/2016

      “Article 29.

      (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
      (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”

      Now what?

    • Youtube and vimeo exist.

  4. pagophilus
    22/09/2016

    Watch it for yourself (with foreign subtitles):

    https://vimeo.com/180244371

    • angela coral eisenhauer
      24/09/2016

      Vaxxed, oh its on you tube, just go to my page………. or vaxxed uk…. angela coral eisenhauer, cheers 🙂 But the point here is the health minister, Victorian Health, Australia, somehow has a reasonable hank? doing her twitter posts for her, is that significant?

      • No. Not even slightly significant.

      • Jill Hennessy is Bonnie Offit. And Reasonable Hank. On Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays only.

      • Mike Stevens
        25/09/2016

        I had one the other day. Very reasonable it was too.

        ETA: Sorry, I see that you said “hank”. My mistake.

    • Mike Stevens
      24/09/2016

      Exciting…not.

      I dropped into it at 1:08:55.
      Del Bigtree announces: “The problem is, that William Thompson, being the lead scientist, he’s going to have to present…”

      So, after only 3 seconds of video, and already one lie….
      (Thompson was not the lead scientists on the study. He assisted with the epidemiology section)

  5. Leah
    22/09/2016

    Fraud, cover ups and censorship has had devastating consequences for my son and family. Enough of the lies.

  6. Sarah Valentini
    22/09/2016

    Dr Michael Gannon saying “One, two, three per cent reductions in vaccination rates harm children. They put them in intensive care, they kill them. This is not scare-mongering” seems to be contradictory!.. It is absolutely scare-mongering. There is evidence in other countries of high vaccination rates (99% in a province of China), yet they still have the highest cases of Measles in the world!.. Is that scary?? I think so!..
    Censorship for this topic is suspicious!.. What is being hidden?.. Where is the transparency??

    Dr Andrew Wakefield’s research suggested further studies in the relationship between bowel disease, autism and also MMR.. He did not establish or prove a causal relationship, nor did he claim to! Why is even the suggestion that vaccines may not be safe dismissed with such vigour?.. Seriously… this is so suspicious.. Would be nice to have the opportunity to know the truth.. The film “Vaxxed” is the tip of the iceberg..

    • Irwin
      23/09/2016

      Sometimes people dont want the truth, because it will show they were complicit or hoodwinked by the lie. The harder one tries to stifle the truth the more one is seen to be doing it.

      • kfunk937
        24/09/2016

        Sometimes people dont want the truth, because it will show they were complicit or hoodwinked by the lie.

        That explains anti-vaccinationists and Wakefield apologists perfectly.

        • Actually, if I am hoodwinked by the lie, I want to know. Hence why I keep asking about demonstrating that universal fraud. Sigh, Cia needs to learn this stuff.

      • AutismDadd
        24/09/2016

        And sometimes its true.

    • Brian
      24/09/2016

      “(not a)Dr Andrew Wakefield’s research suggested further studies in the relationship between bowel disease, autism and also MMR.. He did not establish or prove a causal relationship, nor did he claim to!”

      The paper didn’t claim a link, but Wakefield himself certainly did, at the press conference he threw at the time his fraudulent paper was published and many times since then, leading to plummeting vaccination rates across the world and the beginning of one of the biggest medical hoaxes in modern history.

      As Wakefield’s paper recommended, tons of studies were done afterward, involving millions of children all over the world, and they show that the unvaccinated develop autism at the same rate as the vaccinated, so it’s obvious that vaccines don’t cause it. Unfortunately the anti-vaccine movement rejects the mountains of evidence that prove them wrong.

      • ^^^This

      • AutismDadd
        24/09/2016

        Lets have your documentation of all this proof then.

      • AutismDadd
        26/09/2016

        ” tons of further studies” That’s heavy man.

      • 655321
        27/09/2016

        “tons of further studies were done, involving millions of children all
        over the world, and they all show that the unvaccinated develop autism
        at the same rate as the vaccinated” For shits and giggles, post at least some of the “tons” studies showing this.

    • Mike Stevens
      24/09/2016

      “There is evidence in other countries of high vaccination rates (99% in a
      province of China), yet they still have the highest cases of Measles in
      the world!.. Is that scary?? I think so!..”

      If 99% of china really were vaccinated (it’s not btw) that still leaves 13,600,000 unvaccinated Chinese who can and do catch measles.
      No wonder it sees so much!

      • Michael McCarthy
        25/09/2016

        To be fair, the claim is that in one province they saw the most cases in the world. Thankfully, Sayer Ji in all his wisdom garbled the whole thing (from 2012). Zhejiang saw 1076 cases that year, out of 55 million people. Of that, 8.6% were vaccinated individuals. (there is no data on if the outbreak occurred in the rural interior, where vaccination is lower, or the urban coast)
        And didn’t China have a problem with improperly stored vaccines a few years back?

    • The “99% China vax rate and they still got measles” claim is a lie made by greenmedinfo. Read the original study the claim comes from and see how, in reality, Chinese adults are not always fully vaxed, Chinese officials are trying to get the caught up, measles rate is decreasing, and the study was only about one Chinese province, not the entire country.

      • AutismDadd
        24/09/2016

        Adults getting measles? How many adults get measles anywhere?

      • AutismDadd
        26/09/2016

        Of course. Any statements about vaccines that doesn’t claim safe and effective is a lie to the Queen of Denial. And all children who regress after a series of vaccines are coincidences. Odd though, I researches the Coincidence theory of Autism and found no Gold Standard, Peer Reviewed studies confirming it.

    • AutismDadd
      24/09/2016

      Wakefield suggested studying the MMR made by both Merck (synonymous with consumer death) and GlaxoSmithKline whose MMR was rejected by Canada over safety issues. Brian Deer basically was paid by these vaccine makers who largely fund the British Medical Journal, Deer’s employer at the time. And who published the BMJ? Why the General Medical Council. Well how bout dat?

      • Mike Stevens
        25/09/2016

        You seem to have multiple crossed wires. The GMC, the BMJ and Glaxo are in no way connected (other than the BMJ accepting paid adverts from various competing drug manufacturers, as does every journal).
        Deer was not “employed” by the BMJ.

        • AutismDadd
          25/09/2016

          Nope he was. Its you who is not informed. MMR makers fund the BMJ, again you simply believe nonsense rather than investigating. You could find all in 5 minutes.

          • Mike Stevens
            25/09/2016

            The claims are yours, so the onus is on you to provide the supporting evidence.
            Please if you will provide evidence that:
            1. Glaxo largely funds the BMJ.
            2. The BMJ is published by the GMC.
            3. The BMJ was Brian Deer’s employer.
            All these claims of yours are incorrect, like all of your other claims are.

          • AutismDadd
            26/09/2016

            No they aren’t. And its GSK and MERCK (synonymous with consumer death) who are largely funding the BMJ Here’s your chance to do some research and learn the real background of the Wakefield story. I guess you don’t want to go there.

          • Mike Stevens
            26/09/2016

            So, you haven’t any evidence at all. Why am I not surprised?
            You are, as usual Adud, all mouth and no trousers.
            Bye bye troll!

          • AutismDadd
            26/09/2016

            Coward. Do your own search.

          • Mike Stevens
            26/09/2016

            So, no evidence for us it seems
            As usual, you are all mouth and no trousers.

        • Mike, just as a sort of … mental warm-up, I guess.

          Would you mind explaining how to tell the difference between a paid advert and a study?

          Thanks.

          • Mike Stevens
            27/10/2016

            Jonathan Graham posted links to an analysis of medical journal publication practice the other day. It was quite revealing (but I don’t have the link, sorry). On the issue of funding, it seems that only around 4% of the costs of the journal publication come from pharmaceutical company adverts.

            Adverts for drug company products are strictly regulated in the UK, although the USA (wrongly imo) allows promotion to the public for prescription only medicines. A journal advert or promotion for a medical device or product is highly regulated. The MHRA issues guidance in its “Blue Guide” (you can google it)

            In the journals, adverts are quite distinct from reports on research studies, although with the current trend for journals to adopt a more modern “magazine style” it can sometimes be difficult to spot an advert from an editorial comment or other journal entry.

            Research reports and trials all aspire to be formally published in peer-reviewed journal format. However, some trials do get pharma funding. This is almost never absolute; it is usual for trials to get main funding from a research institute/body or health agency or charitable bodies but some funding from elsewhere often comes in as well. There are some journals who accept “research” articles that are entirely drug company funded, or even ghost written by pharma representatives and tidied up to look like they are independent, high quality studies (but the medical community knows full well when this happens, as the experts in that field know about all the ongoing major research programmes). For example I was at the Glasgow HIV drug conference this week; many early drug studies (eg ATLAS-M study, ARIA study 48 week data, 96 week data etc) presented on major trials. These trials may require pharma funding because the study drugs are provided by pharma for the researchers to then conduct the clinical study on. Any “pharma only” research on a drug is quite visible to everyone, and the results of any of those studies is duly taken into consideration along with the conflict of interest issue. The key opinion leaders in any field know when studies have had pharma influence, believe me.

            However, the public may not know how to distinguish clearly between different studies, and so may give undue weight to one study, or inappropriately dismiss another study because they saw a Pharma company name attached to the trial info. We see this regularly when antivaxers try and tell us on these forums which studies are “invalid”!

            Just a few random thoughts…

          • Ron Roy
            28/10/2016

            Random thoughts? Your incapable of having a logical thought. You’re programmed to spew the garbage you spew.

          • 29/10/2016

            Logic is just ordered thoughts.

            So random thoughts would indeed be illogical.

            Computers are very good at logic but have absolutely no common sense whatsoever.

            Speaking of logic, have you found out how the burden of proof works yet?

          • Ron Roy
            30/10/2016

            Have you?

          • 30/10/2016

            Yup.

          • shay simmons
            30/10/2016

            One thing at a time, kiddo — he still hasn’t grasped the concept of plagiarism.

  7. Judith
    23/09/2016

    I do feel sad at the deplorable state of journalism where facts are not checked:

    What the Wakefield critics don’t tell you is that a) the study was coauthored by 12 other scientists and b) the paper made no such conclusion whatsoever between MMR and autism.

    Wakefield’s paper was a “Case Series”, which is not a hypothesis testing paper. He simply took the doctors referrals, treated the disease and reported the information provided by the parents, the referring doctors and the outcomes of his investigations. Also, his 19 other papers were never retracted, and the investigations into gastrointestinal disease has been replicated multiple times around the world.

    The paper was a study involving a group of children who had presented with gastric complications, the parents of whom had approached Wakefield (the top gastroenterologist in the UK at the time) and his research team to try and assist them with their children’s condition, which is exactly what they did. During this investigation 8 of the 12 parents revealed that these symptoms, along with the so-called autistic regression had started coincidentally with the administering of the MMR vaccine and what the scientists discovered was that when they treated the bowel disorders, the neurological and behavioural aberrations were similarly ameliorated.

    Where in any of that does it show that Wakefied was making a causal link? It was simply never stated – ever. In fact, Wakefield was advocating vaccine alternatives – he was pro-vaccine but pro SAFE vaccines.

    It is of interest that the person that retracted the study, Sir Crispin Davis, was making a large salary in a non-executive director position on the board of UK MMR makers GlaxoSmithKline. The “investigation” was funded by The Sunday Times whose owner at the time, Rupert Murdoch’s son James, was making a large salary in his director position on the board of UK MMR makers GlaxoSmithKline. In the 1998 press conference Andrew Wakefield recommended using the monovalent measles vaccine option that had a safety record dating back to the late 60s, so he actually recommended vaccinating against measles. Unless you’re going to tell us that Andrew Wakefield was psychic, why isn’t the NHS for removing said option from the schedule over six months later at the request. Dr John Walker Smith who worked with Wakefield in the same capacity was exonerated of all charges

    The GMC proceeding was a multi-year, multi-million dollar prosecution against Drs. Wakefield, Walker-Smith, and Murch. It related to a controversial 1998 study published in The Lancet suggesting a possible link between autism, the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and bowel disease. Based on the GMC prosecution, both Drs. Walker-Smith and Wakefield lost their licenses to practice and the Lancet article was officially retracted. The GMC alleged that the physician-authors had failed to obtain necessary ethical clearances and that they had subjected the twelve children in the study to unnecessary medical procedures.

    Justice Mitting, reviewing Dr. Walker-Smith’s appeal in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court, found that the GMC’s conclusions were “based on inadequate and superficial reasoning” and that “the finding of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure are both quashed.” See full text of the decision.

    Dr. Walker-Smith’s professional insurance coverage paid for his appeal; Dr. Wakefield’s insurance carrier would not.

    • Proponent
      24/09/2016

      Still repeating the same old lies, Judith?

      Shameful.

      Any -ways..

      “Both Wakefield and Walker-Smith appealed the decision to England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court); but Wakefield subsequently abandoned his appeal, claiming lack of funds. Martin Walker gives a different version:

      “A couple of months after the end of the GMC hearing, still pursued by Deer and his paymasters, Dr. Wakefield was denied the chance of an Appeal in the UK on his counsel’s advice that he didn’t stand the requisite 52% chance of success, this meant that his medical insurance company would not fund an appeal.” (Walker, 2012, p.49)

      Though I usually prefer not to speculate, I believe it possible that Wakefield instituted the appeal to position himself as a martyr fighting the good fight and withdrew before the decision could be reached. Wakefield acted in similar ways in other cases,specifically his lawsuit against Channel 4 and Brian Deer a few years earlier, so this possibility does seem to have validity (Dyer, 2007; Press Gazette, 2007).”

      (Source: “Andrew Wakefield Has Never Been “Exonerated”: Why Justice Mitting’s Decision in the Professor John Walker-Smith Case Does Not Apply to Wakefield” )

      • My my, well isn’t that interesting. It’s almost as if everything Judith claimed has been refuted and debunked ad nauseum. Weird, huh?

      • AutismDadd
        24/09/2016

        Not speculate? Its all you do. And you don’t even know it?

    • Wow, this bullshït gets sooo old. You’ve been lied to. Suckered. Taken for a ride. Deal with it.

    • Mike Stevens
      24/09/2016

      Sigh…..Yes it is tedious when Judith rolls out the antivax lie bandwagon so regularly, isn’t it?

      a) 10 of his 12 coauthors retracted their connection with Wakefield’s paper.
      b) It doesn’t matter how the paper phrased its muddy conclusion – Wakefield was stripped of his medical license for gross professional misconduct and dishonesty.
      c) His paper was a case series, and also a hypothesis paper. Why do you think he measured urinary methylmalonic acid and compared with age-matched controls?
      d) His paper was not suggesting bowel disease occurred in autistics – that was well known already, and multiple other authors have demonstrated that. Wakefield proposed a new syndrome (ileo-lymphoid nodular hyperplasia of the gut), but was shown to have fraudulently altered biopsy results, and nobody has replicated his fudged findings – nobody anywhere in the world.
      e) The parents had indeed approached Wakefield, often at his instigation or that of the law firm he was shacked up with to defraud the NHS litigation scheme, which is one reason why he was found to have been dishonest in describing his case series as being a series of unsolicited referrals.
      f) There was no financial conflict concerning Glaxo/Brian Deer/Sunday Times/Little Miss Muffet et al. Wakefield was the one who was specifically employed by a lawfirm to manufacture a compensation case for MMR damages, and came up with his case series to support his paymasters. He made $750,000 over 2 years for this work (while supposedly also working as a full time researcher in the Royal Free); He also failed to account for £50,000 of research grant money he had received, and Wakefield was developing an immunotherapy/rival MMR vaccine which he took out a patent for and which he forecast would make him £30 million per year. So, no conflicts of interest there then!
      g) The GMC case proved Wakefield guilty on over 30 charges of serious professional misconduct. Walker Smith appealed his own guilty decision, and since he was merely doing Wakefield’s bidding, he was able to argue he was acting in the clinical interests of the children and didn’t realise he was doing unethical research. His defence was basically “I’m sorry… I was too stupid to realise I had been hoodwinked by Wakefield, and unlike him I was doing my best for these kids”
      h) Wakefield’s Medical Defence society refused to back an appeal for him, stating that he would lose the case if it came to an appeal, and they were not prepared to waste their money.

      Wikipedia has a good resume of the tawdry saga if you want the facts, Judith – all with references to original source material. If you think their account is wrong, please edit the section as you feel fit.

    • They had the same insurance carrier, Judith.

      • Judith
        31/10/2016

        You have evidence that Wakefield was insured – can you provide it because he clearly states he was not.

        • Judith, you literally just stated that Wakefield’s insurance refused his ‘claim’? You are using kettle logic – why?

          • Judith
            31/10/2016

            Yes I should have said Wakefield had insufficient insurance and it did not cover his legal costs unlike Walker-Smith.
            If he had sufficient insurance I am sure he would have received the same outcome.

          • 31/10/2016

            They had the *same* insurance carrier, Judith.

          • Mike Stevens
            01/11/2016

            In the UK, there is no “insufficient insurance” as you put it.
            Doctors sign up with either one of the 2 medical insurance societies, and know exactly what they get. There is no form of menu with the ability to get less cover for less money – it is all or nothing.

            The situation re Wakefield was that his insurance body (the Medical Defence Union) looked at the possibility of funding an appeal, but realising that Wakefield had no hope in hell of succeeding, they told him it was not worth pursuing. If that is what you mean by “refused his claim” then let it be so, Judith. But the bottom line is that the appeal was a complete non-starter.

          • Proponent
            01/11/2016

            No.. you should not say that Wakefraud had insufficient insurance.. that would be a lie..

            “Both Wakefield and Walker-Smith appealed the decision to England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court); but Wakefield subsequently abandoned his appeal, claiming lack of funds. Martin Walker gives a different version:

            “A couple of months after the end of the GMC hearing, still pursued by Deer and his paymasters, Dr. Wakefield was denied the chance of an Appeal in the UK on his counsel’s advice that he didn’t stand the requisite 52% chance of success, this meant that his medical insurance company would not fund an appeal.” (Walker, 2012, p.49)

            Though I usually prefer not to speculate, I believe it possible that Wakefield instituted the appeal to position himself as a martyr fighting the good fight and withdrew before the decision could be reached. Wakefield acted in similar ways in other cases,specifically his lawsuit against Channel 4 and Brian Deer a few years earlier, so this possibility does seem to have validity (Dyer, 2007; Press Gazette, 2007).”

            (Source: Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH – August 1, 2016 | “Andrew Wakefield Has Never Been “Exonerated”: Why Justice Mitting’s Decision in the Professor John Walker-Smith Case Does Not Apply to Wakefield” )

  8. Jodie Wirth
    23/09/2016

    ‘It’s irresponsible to do anything that might threaten the public’s health’. Yes Michael Gannon, it is irresponsible to do anything that might threaten the public’s health, and the CDC have done just that. That is what this documentary is about. You are further threatening the public’s health by not addressing the issues raised by CDC whistleblower and current employee, Dr William Thompson.

  9. angela coral eisenhauer
    24/09/2016

    Um? interesting, seems Jill Hennessy, our Victorian Health minister, actually has a wonderful research helper, who posts for her. Her twitter post last night 9.00 am was written by a twitter account holder, name of reasonable hank, now is he her researcher, or on her PR team, just puxzzling, can anyone clarify?

  10. Proponent
    24/09/2016

    This is Andy..

    “The Panel noted that the sanction of suspension may be appropriate for conduct that falls short of being fundamentally incompatible with continued registration; where there is no evidence of harmful deep-seated or attitudinal problems; and where there is insight and no significant risk of repeating behaviour. Although these points have been set out in the GMC’s Indicative Sanctions Guidance which was published subsequent to these events, the Panel considered that the guidance outlines the type of sanction appropriate to the gravity of misconduct and that the same principles are applicable to Dr Wakefield’s actions at the material times. The Panel considers that Dr Wakefield’s conduct in relation to the facts found falls seriously short of the relevant standards and that suspension would not be sufficient or appropriate against a background of several aggravating factors and in the absence of any mitigating submissions made on his behalf. Dr Wakefield’s continued lack of insight as to his misconduct serve only to satisfy the Panel that suspension is not sufficient and that his actions are incompatible with his continued registration as a medical practitioner.

    Accordingly the Panel has determined that Dr Wakefield’s name should be erased from the medical register. The Panel concluded that it is the only sanction that is appropriate to protect patients and is in the wider public interest, including the maintenance of public trust and confidence in the profession and is proportionate to the serious and wide-ranging findings made against him.”

    (See the full ruling.. here.)

    And..

    Refuting one of the tropes that Andrew Wakefield was wronged

    “Conclusion

    Does Walker-Smith’s decision exonerate Andrew Wakefield? The decision, if read generously, can cast doubt on one set of findings against Wakefield–that he subjected some of the children to invasive tests that were not clinically indicated. It leaves untouched, however, the rest of the charges found proved against Wakefield, and in fact, reinforces several of the allegations–for example,that Wakefield conducted research without ethics committee approval, that Wakefield included misrepresentations in the paper, and that Wakefield did not disclose conflicts of interests. It’s anything but an exoneration, and the charges against Wakefield, as the GMC concluded, amount to serious ethical violations.”

    • AutismDadd
      24/09/2016

      Yes the GMC. Brian Deer worked for the GMC under the British Medical Journal. The BMJ is largely funded by…..MMR makers GlaxoSmithKline and MERCK (synonymous with consumer death). No wonder criticism of MMR vaccines was frowned upon. Even the fact Canada had rejected GSK’s MMR for safety concerns had no bearing. So no surprise the case was a train wreck of lies meant to silence 13 medical professionals who were doing there jobs.

  11. Dr. Gannon responds that the director [Mr. Wakefield]– who he claims is an ex-colleague – has been “entirely discredited” and his documentary shouldn’t be screened.

    “Not when it’s made by a charlatan [Mr. Wakefield], not when it’s made by someone who’s been entirely discredited by the scientific world [Mr. Wakefield], the medical world [Mr. Wakefield], someone who was struck off the medical register for having harmed people and been seen as being a danger to the community [Mr. Wakefield],” says Dr Gannon.

    “That’s not the kind of person I’d be getting my scientific information from.”

    Kinda sums it up perfectly, wouldn’t you say?

  12. Diet dee
    24/09/2016

    Loved the film but don’t these idiots understand that banning a film in a free society will only increase the appeal

    • I actually agree that the press about the film being pulled will probably lead to more people wanting to see it. But, it could also lead to them being more aware, before they see it, of why it is such a problematic film. There is nothing truthful in the film whatsoever and people need to know that fact before they see it.

      • AutismDadd
        26/09/2016

        Listen to the Queen of Denial. Telling people what to think as if she knows all. As a well documented and unashamed Pro-Vac Shill, Kathy should offend most by her lack of understanding, flexibility and her cold hearted comments. Credibility issues a plenty.

    • AutismDadd
      24/09/2016

      Hopefully

    • No-one’s banned it, Judith.

      Youtube and Vimeo exist.

      The only people stopping you from seeing it are the makers of the flim.

  13. Australia may be interested in a book based on review of 2,000 studies on autism. http://amzn.to/1qekFSc

    • Brian
      25/09/2016

      Hi there.
      Which journal will this review be published in? How many systematic reviews has this author been part of?

      What’s that… oh, just another anti-vax conspiracy author exploiting the ignorant and gullible for book sale$.

      • Brian Deer had published precisely how many systematic reviews prior to his first-ever publication? My record is slightly better. The references I cite are available online at http://envgencauses.com. I believe I will let my readership decide whether I have reflected the totality of the evidence on the causes of autism, not someone who has never read the book.

        • Brian
          25/09/2016

          As far as I’m aware, Brian Deer has never written a systematic review in epidemiology or related fields. Leading experts in the field have.

          When you can’t convince any of the actual experts of your claims, because they don’t hold up under scrutiny, but instead rely on the uninformed public, that makes you a scam artist.

          • 25/09/2016

            I do look forward to the opinion of actual experts of the representation of the thousand or so studies reviewed in “Causes”.

          • Brian
            25/09/2016

            So you’re just here to peddle a book, eh?

      • Ron Roy
        30/10/2016

        You would expect journals that received thousands of dollars in advertising from pharmaceutical companies to publish anything derogatory concerning some of their money making products? Yeah ok here’s a little more pablum.

        • Jonathan Graham
          30/10/2016

          …as already demonstrated. Very little money for journals come from advertisements. So you’re wrong…or as the kids say “Ron Roy just posted something”

    • kfunk937
      01/01/2017

      ^^Flagged for spam^^

  14. forvaccinesafety
    25/09/2016

    Vaxxed is about the handling of controversial findings on vaccines by the CDC Immunization Safety division.

    “This is a lawyer that was reading through these documents that had never seen them before. And I basically was telling this guy I was complicit, and I went along with this, we did not report significant findings. Ya know, I’m not proud of that and uh, it’s probably, it’s the lowest point in my career that I went along with that paper.”

    CDC scientist, Dr William Thompson, from phone transcripts in Vaccine Whistleblower, by Kevin Barry

    • Brian
      26/09/2016

      He may believe that his failure to report a confounding variable was the low point in his career, but I’d say his low point was getting involved with a scam artist that would deceptively splice his statements.

      Why do you love to defend scam artists so much gracie?

    • Kevin’s Barry’s Account of what Dr. William Thompson said.

  15. Proponent
    26/09/2016

    The Age | “Anti-vaccination documentary Vaxxed dumped from Castlemaine Local and International Film Festival amid firestorm of criticism”

    “On Thursday, Victorian Health Minister Jill Hennessy lashed CLIFF for jeopardising the health of children and appealed to the community to ignore the film.

    “It’s irresponsible to promote messages that have a harmful impact, not just on kids in Castlemaine but on all kids,” Ms Hennessy said.Castlemaine has vaccination rates that are consistently about 10 per cent below the state average but are worst for two year olds, of whom only about 80 per cent are vaccinated.

    “We’ve got to keep challenging the anti-science myth pedalling that goes on around vaccination – and a film that goes out there to say ‘vaccinations aren’t safe’ is really, really
    unhelpful, particularly in communities where the vaccination rates are in many circumstances lower than what the state average is,” Ms Hennessy said.”

Leave a reply