Talk:Vaxxed

Notable Reference

The following statement is continuously being deleted:

"Mike Adams director of the Natural News Forensic Food Lab wrote: "VAXXED: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe" has already made history by being the first medical documentary in history that the entire mainstream media attacked without even seeing it. — Mike Adams (director)[12]"

Why? Because Mike Adams isn't notable. Here is a comment for the constant reverting (edit war): "Notable? Haven't heard of the Natural News Forensic Food Lab."

I never heard of 'Penny Lane' before. Why is her quote allowed to be on the page and not Mike Adams? I will tell you, there is only 1 point of view allowed on this page and that is of the anti-vax group.

This article as I have stated before, should either present information from BOTH sides, or NO sides. You want to discuss vaccines on this page. Fine, but also include articles and information from the other side. Conzar (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

There are a number of things wrong with the quote you keep adding. First of all, you have two names wrong - it's Mike AdamS (with an S) and its the "Natural News Forensic Food Lab", not NATIONAL. But more importantly, Mike Adams is a blogger and conspiracy theorist and is not a reliable source for anything. There's no evidence his food lab really exists beyond as a marketing tool for his website. And finally, why would the director of a food lab have a notable opinion about a documentary about vaccines? Mike Adams is not a physician or scientist, he just plays one in YouTube videos. Please find reliable sources if you want to add material to the article. -- Krelnik (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Its your opinion that Mike Adams is not a credible source. Mike Adams is an outspoken consumer health advocate, award-winning investigative journalist, internet activist and science lab director. Seems very relevant to this film to me. I think what you are really looking for, is main stream media and pro-vaccination sources.Conzar (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Conzar: Please read MOS:FILM#Critical response. Also note that Natural News is not considered a reliable source by WP standards. Therefore, opinion pieces published by it's owner would not be considered reliable, either. To quote from the (well-sourced) WP page about him:

The site's founder, Michael Allen "Mike" Adams is an AIDS denialist, a 9/11 truther, a birther, and has endorsed conspiracy theories surrounding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Adams was the subject of controversy after posting a blog entry implying a call for violence against proponents of GMO foods, and then allegedly creating another website with a list of names of alleged supporters. The journal Vaccine accused Adams of spreading "irresponsible health information" through Natural News. He has also been accused of using "pseudoscience to sell his lies". Adams has described vaccines as “medical child abuse”.

To summarize, if Mike Adams ever said that the sky was blue, we'd still need to find reliable sources for the color of the sky before we could include that here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hit Piece

The author of this page clearly is trying to discredit the movie providing very subjective opinions on the topic.

"The film was directed by discredited former physician and anti-vaccine activist". This sentence clearly proves the point that the author is biased.

The author references material that may or may not be in the film as clearly he has NOT seen it yet as its unreleased. Conzar (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The film discredits itself perfectly adequately without any assistance. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Guy, have you seen this movie. Can you please substantiate your claims?Conzar (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The article is about the movie. At this point, posting information and rebuttals about the contents of the movie are simply unsubstantiated since no one here has actually viewed the movie. Its my opinion that several editors are trying to frame this movie in a negative light and are having the audacity of accusing me of abusing the system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conzar (talk • contribs) 10:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Also note, user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG has reverted my changes and guess what, his user has been deleted. Sock puppet account most likely. Conzar (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I am impressed that an individual with so little editing experience is so knowledgeable at identifying sockpuppet accounts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if it's a "takes one to know one" scenario? Guy (Help!) 12:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:Be nice. The sentence quoted by Conzar does not "clearly proves the point that the author is biased". Wakefield is discredited (by the UK GMC), and is a former physician, and is an anti-vaccine activist: see the Andrew Wakefield article. Conzar is free to suggest an edit without edit-warring. May I suggest that JzG could appear less subjective if they moderated their comments. May I also suggest Conzar tries to be very careful with spelling - your original edit (since reverted) contained a number of errors. There is pre-release material about the film and a substantive trailer on the film's website, a link to which I have added to External Links. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The tone of this article is clearly biased and 1 sided. Nothing in this article seems to present both sides of the argument like http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/mar/30/vaxxed-andrew-wakefield-tribeca-robert-de-niro-free-speech.

"A substantial body of subsequent research has established that there is no link between vaccines and autism." This sentence alone is NOT appropriate. This article is about a movie. What relevance does this sentence have other than to distract the topic. If you want to discuss and debate vaccines, this wiki page isn't for that. This wiki page should only be about the movie.

• WP:UNDUE Just gonna leave this here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

CNN

Another source: [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Language

Language=English

Really? From what I've seen of it, doublespeak comes closer... Guy (Help!) 17:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not helpful, Guy/JzG. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Contentious text

Conzar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) inserted the following:

Philippe Diaz, Cinema Libre’s CEO said, "the festival’s directors cited pressure from sponsors as the key reason for cutting it from the lineup. One of the event’s major donors is the Alfred P Sloan Foundation, which, along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, has donated money to the development of an Aids vaccine."

References

I removed it due to the specious appeal to conspiracy (Sloan Foundation donated towards research into an AIDS vaccine, therefore BIG PHARMA). The Guardian piece is long on false appeals to freedom of speech and short on constitutional awareness. Wakefield's First Amendment rights are not in any way affected by a commercial festival deciding not to give him a platform, and this much is obvious (though Wakefield, who is as English as I am, could be forgiven for not understanding this). Guy (Help!) 22:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is the conspiracy here? There are 2 claims to why the film was dropped. The producers are presenting one side and the mass media is presenting another side. By dropping the producers side, you are in fact, suppressing information that you are unable to prove to be false. This is why I have reverted the edit.Conzar (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

There are two conspiracy theories in play, actually. One is the supposed "big pharma" conspiracy to shut the film down, the other is the conspiracy theory the film itself promotes, namely the refuted "CDC whistleblower" meme. That one is sufficiently well known that Snopes debunks it, which leaves no excuse for a purported "documentary" covering it as if it were fact. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Have you seen the movie? No. So stating that its based on something debunked by Snopes (not a reliable nor credible source) is not sufficient evidence. Even stating, no excuse. Who are you exactly? You haven't seen the movie yet you are already judging it without knowing what's inside. You are clearly biased and are unable to objectively review this wiki page.Conzar (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree Wakefield has no 1st Amendment issue to argue from the UK, and enough of BigPharma consp theories. But of interest the article does infer Wakefield manipulated De Niro,

"As to how the film was programmed in the first place, Diaz said Wakefield nudged De Niro, who has a child with autism, to let the festival programmers know he had submitted Vaxxed for consideration. “De Niro loves the film, I was told,” said Diaz. “For De Niro, I think it was an important film to show at his festival.”"

Is there other RS which contradict or support this manipulation of De Niro by Dr Fraudster? Gongwool (talk) 07:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There are problematic BLP issues there. Its a third party alleging nefarious intent on the part of Wakefield and the way its worded doesnt reflect well on De Niro either. I would want more sources going into more detail before including anything along those lines. It would also be a bit unfair on Wakefield anyway, any film-maker trying to get their film seen will look for people who have an interest in the subject matter and try to get their support. Given his reputation (Its a bit petty to call him Dr Fraudster) directly jumping to 'manipulation' is a natural leap, however its not necessarily an accurate one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

What big Pharma Conspiracy Theory? Were there any Big Tobacco Conspiracy theories? You know, before the scientist were allowed to blow the whistle? Oh right, Tobacco is different right? How about the Sugar industry? No valid conspiracy theories there either right? You are unable to critically think and analyse information. Big Pharma is a billions of dollars industry. Meaning, they have the money just like tobacco to do the same things that big tobacco did. This isn't conspiracy, this is applying the same tactics used by big tobacco into modern day just with a different industry which is at risk just like the Tobacco industry was at risk years ago.

You constantly say there is a conspiracy theory here however, "Since 1986, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has been compensating children and adults who are victims of vaccine injury including but not limited to: injuries, learning disabilities, severe/permanent disabilities, AUTISM, and death. They have been compensating for AUTISM cases resulting from vaccine injury. If vaccines don't cause autism, why is it being proven in court rulings, and why are they paying these cases out if they don't? Because vaccines DO harm, they DO injure, and they DO kill, and......they DO cause autism."

So explain to me how the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) exists if vaccines are safe? Is the general public defrauding the government by claiming vaccine injury? If so, why would the government allow this? Or is it more logical to show that the government setup this program because vaccines DO INJURE the public. "By 2010, the U.S. Court of Claims had awarded nearly $3 billion dollars to vaccine victims for their catastrophic vaccine injuries, although two out of three applicants have been denied compensation."

$3 billion dollars and that is by 2010!Conzar (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Its very funny that you make the claim that the film director manipulated De Niro without any evidence. Now that is truly a conspiracy theory.Conzar (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Conzar

I have requested a topic ban of Conzar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) due to tendentious editing and promotion of fringe views. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I look forward to the Arbitration ruling that JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the one that is biased and is attempting to make the topic about vaccination when the topic should be about the movie.Conzar (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Given your negligible editing history outside this topic, versus my ten years of editing and enforcement of policy, I regret to inform you that you may be disappointed. Guy (Help!) 19:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You regret to inform me. Why do you regret? If you regret, than that means you feel that you may have done something wrong. You most likely know that your edits on this page are biased. This is why you regret. You probably know that you will win because the Vaccination industry has poured enough money into wikipedia to ensure that honest, and unbiased discussion about vaccination cannot happen. The people of the world are waking up. We understand the tricks and propaganda which are used against us.Conzar (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)