Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
pkpoop, so what you're saying is if a "documentary" claiming the holocaust never happened with interviews of people making up facts and with fake stories were presented to the festival, it would and should be welcomed with open arms?
He didn't change his mind....he caved. An awful thing to do in the arts.
(SNIP)
He knew what was in and what the movie was about.
I disagree. I believe he heard about the movie and because the issue is one he's concerned about decided to show the movie without knowing all the information. Afterwards he then heard more information and watched it, did some research, realized the controversy, and decided not to show it.
From your link:
Quote:
In a statement, Robert De Niro, a founder of the festival, wrote: “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. 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.”
I don't consider that censorship. But, I guess words do have different meanings.
If I were in my 30's and unvaccinated, I would definitely get every missing shot in one sitting. The caveat is that some vaccines need boosters so you have to give time between then. There have been multiple studies now that have conclusively shown that the body safely processes multiple vaccines at once. But by no means am I telling your daughters to protect themselves, everyone is free to expose themselves to disease and suffer as they like. But if you want to send kids to school with other children, that's a whole different story they need to stay away
Have you ever gone on the CDC's Adult, not the Children's, List? Do you think they are identical? While it does list some of those childhood ones, there are caveats. If you never had a measles or chicken pox vax, it also says that if you HAD those diseases, an adult does not need them those vaccinations because they are immune from having the disease itself. My adult daughters do not need to be vaccinated for the 2015 Chicken Pox vax because had they had it as children before the vaccine came out and cannot catch it again. I bathed them myself when they had it. Do you think that I caught chicken pox from my own kids when I had the pox myself as a child?
Shingles is only recommended for adults over 50 and is not contagious, same for Tetanus. Gardasil is only for adults under 26. My daughters, and of course me, are older than 26. They give it to adolescents before they become sexually active. My daughters are over 30 and married. Too late before sexual activity. It is just about a given that adult women over 30 are already sexually active, and have already been exposed to HPV. Etc, etc, etc. Should we all get a Rotovirus vaccination as an adult catch up vaccine which primarily infects infants too??
Read the CDC Adult List with the Footnotes. Even Hep. B. vaccination, which all children must get, is not recommended for ALL Adults. At least know what is recommended for adults before demanding that every adult must have every single vaccination in existence.
Sorry, to get OT, but since this film is about vaccines, don't you think the pro vaxxers need to know what vaccinations are recommended by the CDC before talking about the science of them?
If you never had a measles or chicken pox vax, it also says that if you HAD those diseases, an adult does not need them those vaccinations because they are immune from having the disease itself
I disagree. I believe he heard about the movie and because the issue is one he's concerned about decided to show the movie without knowing all the information. Afterwards he then heard more information and watched it, did some research, realized the controversy, and decided not to show it.
From your link:
I don't consider that censorship. But, I guess words do have different meanings.
The statement in support and the statement saying the movie wouldn't play came on the same day. You deleted my quote at that which shows he did know what the movie was about.
The statement in support and the statement saying the movie wouldn't play came on the same day. You deleted my quote at that which shows he did know what the movie was about.
Actually, the link in the OP (which I thought was yours, my apologies) saying the movie wouldn't play come from the day after the "supportive" statements in your link.
Look, you obviously believe he "caved" to pressure. I think he made a thought out decision. You claim it's censorship, I say I have a right to show the movies I want to show at my film festival.
Censorship is not when I decide not to show a movie to my friends because I think it's stupid, or false, or whatever. That's my choice. Regardless of how I made that choice.
Was new science involved? Wakefield brings nothing to the table on his own.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
