Excellent stuff, I love Del Bigtree's work.....he's fantastic and such a wonderful lion among the sheep. Very eye opening doc isnt it funny it got 'banned' from some hollywood film fest? I wonder why.

Truth is censored more and more because its a direct threat to lies.

From the 1970s to today, parents have been reporting damage to their children after vaccinations. Given the sheer numbers, the videotaped evidence, the corroboration of pediatricians, the Vaccine Injury Court payouts, it's not even a question any more that kids have been harmed, and will continue to be harmed.

The point that the film makes --

What we need to know NOW is how often, and how many kids are harmed, and in what manner. Vaccines work, to some extent, and vaccines harm, to some extent. So it's time for a double blind study between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, that includes the entire range of vaccines. Incredibly, this has never been done.

What parents need to know are the rate and severity of all side effects, vs the rate and severity of possible diseases. Then an informed decision can be made.

Having no answer to that question is not acceptable.

Naysayers to this film have an almost religious faith in vaccines, and ignore the data points of harmed kids, and even the key data point of the documentary: a top scientist says they not only forged data, the data shows a connection between the vaccine and autism. The more scientific approach would be to include these key data points in building an overall perspective on the issue.

Don't rely on religion. Rely on science and logic.

Naysayers also seem to get caught up in what they've read or been told or read regarding Dr. Wakefield. For example, they will say he authored a study that claimed a link between MMR and Autism. They can't even get that right (but it's understandable, if you get your information solely from wikipedia.) The actual study -- yes you can read it -- states the opposite, that no link was proved. (Surprise!) (One should also note that the study was designed by 14 scientist, not one scientist with an agenda, and also that the data was not faked or forged, only the process was criticized.)

It's bizarre that mis-reported criticisms from a case series from twenty years ago should have any relevance to a current documentary on a CDC whistleblower, but that's what people do.

The documentary is eye-opening, hard to watch at times, shocking, and makes no scientific claims that haven't been vetted as true.

The beauty of the documentary is that it represents a turning point -- there will be many more to come, as concerned parents demand answers, real studies, and ultimately (in the very long run) individualized vaccines that can be given with confidence, rather than the current system of roulette, some percentage of children will be irrevocably harmed, but that's all right, because there will be too few to matter.

It's not too few to matter if it's your child.

This is by far the best vaccination documentary so far.

It's certainly not anti-vaccine. It highlights one problematic vaccine in particular but suggests how it could be taken safely. Where it identifies problems with vaccines... it also suggests solutions.

An scientist who works at the CDC, wrote one of the key articles on the safety of vaccines, says he mislead the public. This seems like a credible witness? Furthermore he produces a lot of evidence (original documents and emails) to back up his version of the truth. He seems to have archived a lot of stuff. He seems to have worked within the system to provide information to an external scientist in a legal fashion.

The CDC scientist concerned is yet to appear in front of a government committee... despite indicating that he is willing to do so.

The CDC appears to be at the very least guilty of destroying relevant documentation: in breach of laws requiring such information be archived.

It's a good example how data manipulation can take place. Anyone who works with data will realise that often numbers can be manipulated in such a way that you aren't lying but the results don't fairly represent the findings.

The film concludes with very reasonable suggestions which include removing legal indemnity from prosecution from vaccine manufacturers. This indemnity allows the manufacturers to get away with bad behaviour while the public has to foot the bill. It also means that the consequences of poor vaccination practises aren't clearly documented... and contribute to the perception that no vaccination injuries exist (yes some people claim this).

The documentary could be fairly described as a call for improved vaccination practises. It's also a documentary about very well qualified people who are calling out attention to problems in our vaccination practises.

It's an enjoyable documentary in its own right.

Do yourself a favour and watch it?

:-)