A scientific fraud continues to occupy a spotlight
The Andrew Wakefield “documentary” is no longer part of the Tribeca Film Festival.
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 know what that “an issue that is deeply personal to me and my family” shit is supposed to mean. That’s an annoying thing to say, and I wish he’d left it out. Vaccination is personal to everyone, and it’s also impersonal to everyone. It’s not Special to the family of Robert DeNiro, and his being a movie star doesn’t make it so. Vaccination is a very public issue, and people who start thinking of it as “deeply personal” are likely to go on to think of it as something they get to opt out of, because they’re so special…while they depend on other, not-special people to go on vaccinating so that the no-vaxxers can still benefit from herd immunity.
Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, said on Saturday that he believed “the entire board as well as Mr. De Niro have learned a lot in the last several days.”
“My hat is off to them for listening, thinking about it, discussing it and responding,” he said.
Nevertheless, Dr. Schaffner said, it was troubling for scientists that a film promoting “discredited ideas” got so close to a forum as prestigious as the Tribeca Film Festival.
For scientists and also for all the rest of us, who prefer not to see a measles epidemic thanks very much. And yeah – it’s good that they pulled it but they shouldn’t have included it in the first place.
“It gave these fraudulent ideas a face and a position and an energy that many of us thought they didn’t deserve,” he said. “We’re all for ongoing reasonable debate and discussion, but these are ideas that have been proven to be incorrect many, many, many times over the past 15 years.”
And they’re harmful. They’re not just wrong, they’re harmful. Measles can kill.
People pointed out that the film’s presence on the schedule gave it credibility, and now Wakefield can play the “banned by BigPharma” card.
Doctors and infectious disease experts also spoke out. “Unless the Tribeca Film Festival plans to definitively unmask Andrew Wakefield, it will be yet another disheartening chapter where a scientific fraud continues to occupy a spotlight,” Dr. Mary Anne Jackson, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, said in an interview on Friday.
As the criticism mounted on Friday, Mr. De Niro defended the film, saying that he and his wife, Grace Hightower, have a child with autism and that “we believe it is critical that all of the issues surrounding the causes of autism be openly discussed and examined.”
Sigh. They’ve been openly discussed and examined, Bob. People with the right kind of knowledge have found that Wakefield committed fraud in that discredited study. It’s a technical subject, and technical subjects, unlike political and ethical ones, don’t need public discussion to get things right. The discussion and examination happened years ago, the findings were published, there is no need to keep discussing.
Some Hollywood movie stars are about as dumb as they come. Their comments on many many issues betray an ignorance that would normally get someone laughed out of the room. Only recently, Leonardo DiCaprio, climate scientist par excellence, cited Chinooks as proof of global warming. That’s like citing the onset of winter as proof of a new Ice Age
Ophelia, the reason de Niro speaks of this as personal is that he has an autistic son who had the MMR vaccine. It could be said that he is looking for answers in the wrong place.
I know, I quoted him saying that in the last quoted paragraph.
They could have included the movie about Temple Grandin if they were really concerned about autism
Gee, ‘hats off’ to the festival organizers for exercising some basic judgment…AFTER the house burned down?
Children also breathe, and some of them have autism. Oh, noes! Breathing causes the autism! Hold your breath! If your baby is too small to hold his breath, put a plastic bag over his h–
No, I’d better stop. Some people are that hard of thinking.
Ophelia, my apologies. No idea how I missed that.
No problem. I miss lots of stuff, reading too fast.
People looking for answers in the wrong place is such a rich source of mischief in our world, we should probably have a word just for that. It would save time in noting it, at least.
If there’s one thing we need, it’s rich people telling us all what ‘opportunities for conversation’ we’ve been missing all this time.
You’re absolutely right the concept of herd immunity means that vaccination is in no way a personal issue and in every way a community issue.
Personally I dislike the idea that parents are considered to “own” their child to the point they can risk their child’s life but, as the law stands, they can. Os, OK, don’t vaccinate your child. But if you don’t you should be prepared to homeschool that child – no child left unvaccinated for social reasons should attend a school, be prepared to pay for private medicine – no unvaccinated child should be nursed in a public hospital, your child should be unable to attend organisations like boy scouts/girl guides etc, summer camps etc.
And not just that – the whole language of rights centers around parental rights, totally ignoring the rights of the child (until it’s convenient). Parents have a right to bring up their child to be…christian, republican, bigoted…the list goes on and on. In short, to raise the child to be a little carbon copy of themselves. No, they don’t. That child is a person, with their own rights, and they have a right to be a fully realized, fulfilled, and happy individual to the best of their ability.
The parents have a responsibility – to the child, to ensure that the child is healthy and happy as much as possible, and that the child is given the education, whatever, needed to follow their dreams (I still struggle with trying to become who I want to be because my start was so late since my parents ignored the idea that a “girl” could want to be much of anything). They also have a responsibility to the society in which they live to make sure the child isn’t brought up to be a threat to the wellbeing of other people, which means they don’t actually have a right to raise the child to be a bigoted hater.
This language of parental rights is so tied up in the concept of parental ownership of the child, it’s time the left jettisoned it for a more nuanced and legitimate approach.
I agree. Treating kids like the property of their parents enables so much harm.