Festival, Robert De Niro pull anti-vaccination film

[Beruis]

I don't believe he should be no platformed, but he is a quack and is spreading deliberate misinformation. Not vaccinating your kid should be illegal in any sufficiently advanced society. We have access and resources so no excuse. If you don't want your child vaccinated move to fucking Africa, South America, The Middle East, or South East Asia. See how great life is in a third world country. Then get fucking laughed at by the people fighting for vaccines that you take for granted.

[Rennadrel]

I do not think autism is caused by vaccines, and i certainly believe if you are able to get them you should. However there is a serious problem with the current mind set of vaxxed person good, non vaxxed person bad. My family has a history of being severally allergic to vaccines. Like months long debilitation, and in the case of my grandmother she can not take them or she will die. The fact that the government got in the way to prevent anyone with such reactions from being able sue pharmaceutical companies and instead formed the HRSA (http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/) allows these companies to ignore the issue of those of us who are not able to use their product, the do not have to refine their products anymore so as not to cause reactions. A clean pass to push poison on a % of the population.

Im lucky in my family in that i do not suffer from server allergic reactions to vaccines, it mainly effects the women in my family. As i mentioned before my grandmother will die if she takes even a simple vaccine in full dose. My mother, one aunt, one uncle and my sister have issues with vaccines that prevent them from being able bodied individuals for 1-2 months after a simple flu shot injection, the MMR shot nearly killed my sister when she was 13. There is no way to know before hand, and while smaller dose injections strung out over time work in delivery of the vaccination, its stretches out the misery, the reaction by the same fold. I believe in the science of vaccines but if you think for one moment that its a cure all solution that does no harm then you are blind to the facts that surround the vaccines and the government bullshit meant to hide those who do suffer from them. My family is not alone in this.

Be careful.

One thing to consider is that some people develop immunities and others develop reactions as they get older. Some people might never be allergic to bee stings, but they could get stung by one as an adult and swell up like a water balloon, which is what happened to my best friends wife. Now she has to go for an injection every 6 months in order for her body to build up the immunity by giving her an injection and is significantly less than what comes from a honey bees stinger, but won't cause a major reaction.

One could be allergic to a vaccine because the dosage is too high, but having smaller doses can eventually lead to the body building up enough of an immunity that the vaccine doesn't cause any sickness, since they are usually viruses anyway that are given to do just that, build up an immunity. The flu vaccine is a prime example, all it is is a placebo with a small amount of a virus, you might get a cold for a day or two but otherwise won't get extremely ill. I have never had a vaccine that got me really sick, though I still question to this day whether getting a Hep A vaccine when I was 18 was a wise idea, because I started having seizures a few months later. I had only a few within a week and then it stopped for 2 years and I haven't had one while conscious since.

[Slant]

Read what I write.

Again, they all start out like that.

Keynesian theory, started out as a "discredited outlier"

The world being round, started out as a "discredited outlier"

They were dismissed; laughed at by the scientific community, until shown otherwise with irrefutable real world examples or new knowledge.

Yes, but anti-vaccination hasn't just been "an outlier not researched", it's actually been debunked time and again, hasn't it? At some point you should probably give it a rest.

[Endus]

I don't believe he should be no platformed

This is a pretty silly turn of phrase that's popped up recently.

You have never had any right to any "platform". That isn't what freedom of speech is about. The entire concept of "no-platforming" as something that "shouldn't be done" necessarily involves thinking that people deserve some kind of platform on which to distribute their speech.

And that's wrong. You are owed no such platform. You have no right to any such thing. You never did. If you owned the platform in question, nobody could deny its use to you. And if you don't (which is inevitably the case), you're complaining that you can't seize other people's private property to spread your message, a message that the owners disagree with and do not want to support.

No-platforming should be defended. It's the application of property rights. You're free to go out to a public square and shout about whatever you want. That's where your freedom to speak ends, and you have no rights to anything more, not any form of broadcast or distribution of your message whatsoever. If no one will grant you a platform, maybe it's because nobody wants to be associated with your message.

And that's their right.

[Beruis]

This is a pretty silly turn of phrase that's popped up recently.

You have never had any right to any "platform". That isn't what freedom of speech is about. The entire concept of "no-platforming" as something that "shouldn't be done" necessarily involves thinking that people deserve some kind of platform on which to distribute their speech.

And that's wrong. You are owed no such platform. You have no right to any such thing. You never did. If you owned the platform in question, nobody could deny its use to you. And if you don't (which is inevitably the case), you're complaining that you can't seize other people's private property to spread your message, a message that the owners disagree with and do not want to support.

No-platforming should be defended. It's the application of property rights. You're free to go out to a public square and shout about whatever you want. That's where your freedom to speak ends, and you have no rights to anything more, not any form of broadcast or distribution of your message whatsoever. If no one will grant you a platform, maybe it's because nobody wants to be associated with your message.

And that's their right.

I didn't say it was a right, I said I don't believe he should be no platformed. Let him put out the movie idgaf. Stupid people will flock to stupid ideas. Shutting it down makes it seem like you want to hide it because it's true and just gives legitimacy to a false argument. That said, yes it is within their rights to no platform. It's just a dumb move. Don't assume what I mean based on one statement. It makes an ass out of you and me.

I still love you tho endus hellboy all the way

[Zdrasti]

This is a nonissue and shouldn't get any media attention. Shame on them for even covering it. I won't discuss further.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Read what I write.

Again, they all start out like that.

Keynesian theory, started out as a "discredited outlier"

The world being round, started out as a "discredited outlier"

They were dismissed; laughed at by the scientific community, until shown otherwise with irrefutable real world examples or new knowledge.

There have been multiple studies with peer reviewed methodologies and results published since 1998 which all conclusively refute the findings of Wakefield and demonstrate the fallacies in his own methodologies and analysis. There is no scientific basis for Wakefield's hypothesis, and thus publicizing it only serves to misinform the public leading to outbreaks of German Measles and Mumps in schools and will open the door to Polio returning to the first world.

[Crissi]

People really need to read more pages where Bigzo admitted he was wrong...

And no platforms get is a form of free speech by the organization. If Wakefield wants to show his doc, he can show it somewhere else. Like the Internet.

[Beruis]

They're not stopping him from putting out the movie. They're simply not showing it, just as they chose not to show an untold number of other movies.

Would be fine if it was never even said that his movie was submitted, and not given the light it's already had. See my last post on why. There's literally a guy in here arguing the point I said people would.

[Beruis]

Let him. Some people operate like this:
Show the movie -> SEE LOOK AT ALL THIS PROOF SO YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE
Don't show the movie -> LOOK THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE IT SO YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE

You can't do anything about those people because their lack of reasoning creates a catch-22 where you're fueling their beliefs either way.

Stupid is as stupid does.

applejack best pony

[Osmeric]

Anti-vaxxers being called the evil monsters that they are is a desirable outcome.

Heap more calumny on them, please.

[Super Kami Dende]

good shit. Anti-vaxx people need to be stamped out of society and be unable to pass their retarded views onto equally stupid people who will fall for them.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

It should be noted that originally Deniro wanted to keep the movie on the schedule despite pressure to remove it.

This was his original statement:

“In the 15 years since the Tribeca Film Festival was founded, I have never asked for a film to be screened or gotten involved in the programming,” DeNiro said then. “However this is very personal to me and my family and I want there to be a discussion, which is why we will be screening Vaxxed. I am not personally endorsing the film, nor am I anti-vaccination; I am only providing the opportunity for a conversation around the issue.”

The next day he said this:

“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. “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.”

“The Festival doesn’t seek to avoid or shy away from controversy,” he added. “However, we have concerns with certain things in this film that we feel prevent us from presenting it in the Festival program. We have decided to remove it from our schedule.”

[Darththeo]

Let him. Some people operate like this:
Show the movie -> SEE LOOK AT ALL THIS PROOF SO YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE
Don't show the movie -> LOOK THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE IT SO YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE

You can't do anything about those people because their lack of reasoning creates a catch-22 where you're fueling their beliefs either way.

Pretty much exactly why he made the movie. He is trying to circumvent the scientific method and the scientific community.

[Anonymous1038853]

I think this may be one of the situations where censorship is justified. We're talking about a fundamentally inaccurate scientific claim, that has the very likely potential to cause real harm. We're not talking about a fictional work in which vaccines cause autism. Or a scientific query, and subsequent pursuit of an answer. We're talking about an attempt to persuade the audience into believing a demonstrated falsehood, which is significantly detrimental to individual well-being. Let's use a more extreme example: Let's say that someone wanted to put out a "PSA" video that explicitly recommended kids mix chlorine and ammonia to make crystals (Don't do this, it creates chlorine gas and can kill you). Would this be acceptable media? What about someone making a demonstrably false allegation about another person? Would this be okay?

[xChurch]

They should have replaced it with a documentary on confirmation bias instead.

[Anonymous1038853]

I think you mean ammonia. Bleach IS chlorine.

My mistake. Corrected in an edit. Point stands.

[Dr Assbandit]

I have yet to have a discussion with someone who claimed to be an anti-vaxxer that even skimmed the outskirts of a rational or logical argument. Most of their reasoning involves nothing but appeals to emotion using kids with autism or listing off the ingredients of a vaccine to make them sound scary. My nephew is unfortunately autistic, but do I believe vaccines caused it? Absolutely not, seeing as he is literally the only one in 3 generations while we have all had our vaccines (and I have a ginormous family).

I still remember my last argument with this dude regarding vaccines. It was supposed to be a hookup and we started chatting prior to it. According to him, minus the anti-vaxx drivel, the US government was trying to kill off gay people by putting stuff in the water . Pretty sure I developed erectile dysfunction right there and then, since I had never been as turned off as I had been in that moment.

[vindicatorx]

I do.


You're putting a stop gap in the scientific process.

All ideas, whether right or wrong, begin as an outlier until the establishment gets blue in the face with facts.


And before you knee jerk "anti vaxxer!", i'm arguing this in principle and not in support of an idea.

No you are stopping stupidity from spreading dipshits believe people who spout this garbage and are causing harm to innocent children and such. They did the right thing, we have a moral obligation to stop blatant lies than endanger the children of the morons who would watch this film and believe it. Any film presented at this very well known and prestigious film festival has some merit to people just because it is presented at it the admins made the right call.

[urasim]

Let him. Some people operate like this:
Show the movie -> SEE LOOK AT ALL THIS PROOF SO YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE
Don't show the movie -> LOOK THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE IT SO YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE

You can't do anything about those people because their lack of reasoning creates a catch-22 where you're fueling their beliefs either way.

You're wrong. You push more people into the other camp when you censor like this. Has no one ever heard of the Streisand effect?