De Niro axes anti-vaccination film from Tribeca after scrutiny

[donnay]

Well, I personally have reviewed the arguments on both sides of the vaccine issue and feel that the balance of objective based evidence outweighs the argument. I also don't believe that Bush was behind 911, yet I believe that Newtown is a ruse.

You might if they release those 28 pages of the 9/11 report.

 

[navy-vet]

You might if they release those 28 pages of the 9/11 report.

That's true, I could.

 

[donnay]

That's true, I could.

It's refreshing to see a scientist with an open mind.

Obama administration refuses to declassify 28 pages of 9/11 report on foreign governments’ involvement
http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/201...911-report-on-foreign-government-involvement/

 

[dannno]

Well, I personally have reviewed the arguments on both sides of the vaccine issue and feel that the balance of objective based evidence outweighs the argument. I also don't believe that Bush was behind 911, yet I believe that Newtown is a ruse.

Bush was a puppet, I don't think they told him about 9/11 - that doesn't mean that Saudi Arabia, Israel, US intelligence and some US defense and security agencies didn't have some involvement. It could have been as minor as allowing them onto the planes and creating distractions with the military exercises that were being performed that day - it could have been as extensive as remote control airplanes or switching them out with drones and wiring up the buildings with explosives. I tend to go with the latter based on the evidence.

The problem was you made it seem like it should be obvious to anyone, when what I see makes the issue seem about as clear as mud.

Let me tell ya story, you may know it already.

As vaccines became popular the government decided to regulate them. It could be argued they did it for safety, or it could be argued that they did it to ensure that certain companies would become monopoly producers of vaccines, or both. In most cases, the government only allows one manufacturer, and they must meet certain effectiveness criteria or else they aren't allowed to sell the vaccine. Not selling the vaccine in many cases means losing billions of dollars.

Vaccines start out with a high effectiveness rate, 90%+, and they tend to decrease over time. The government requires a 90% effectiveness rate, and so as vaccines become less effective the vaccine companies have two options - they can make the vaccines appear more effective than they actually are by creating fraudulent science - or - they can add things to the vaccine to make them more effective. They can also do both of these things.

Well, it seems to me that the biggest issue that the anti-vax people have is directly related to these companies trying to follow the government regulations. These companies have been putting in more additives and more additives in order to make the vaccines test more effective. They have also been accused of creating fraudulent science that:

A) Makes vaccines appear to be more effective than they actually are, and
B) Making the additives in the vaccines appear to be more safe than they actually are.

In a free market, if you had a vaccine manufacturer who had a vaccine that was 91% effective in 1971, but by 1982 it was only 88% effective, then you might see them create a new more effective vaccine that is back up at the 91% effectiveness rate - but they might have to add some things, including ingredients like thimerisol. Then they could market both vaccines - one for people who are happy with the 88% effectiveness rate and who don't want to be guinnea pigs for these new ingredients, and others who want a higher effectiveness rate and are willing to experiment with these new additives. It would then be very easy to see how effective and how safe these ingredients actually are. But with the way things are now, the vaccine manufacturers are essentially being forced to put in these new additives or else lose billions in profit. Billions is a lot of money, and certainly an amount where you might find some pretty widespread fraud.

 

[donnay]

In NVIC’s statements to GAO and ACCV, we reviewed the history of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 and provided evidence for why that law has become a betrayal of public trust:

FACT: By 2015, over $3 billion in federal compensation had been awarded to more than 4,000 child and adult vaccine victims but two out of three children applying for federal vaccine injury compensation have been turned down, even though there is a $3 billion dollar surplus in the Vaccine Injury Trust Fund; 101 102

FACT: Between 1988 and 1995, vaccine injured children were receiving awards through an administrative procedure. However, when CDC officials changed the rules for obtaining compensation in 1995, including rewriting the definition of encephalopathy, the system became highly adversarial. Today, almost no vaccine injured child can qualify for an uncontested award, especially if they exhibited signs of brain inflammation after vaccination and were permanently brain injured.

FACT: Today, 80 percent of vaccine injury compensation awards are given to adults disabled by flu shots and only 20 percent of awards are given to children legally required to get vaccinated to attend daycare or school;

FACT: Most vaccine injury claims take many years to adjudicate because the Departments of Health and Justice use taxpayer dollars to fight against awarding compensation for the majority of children and adults who apply;

FACT: Parents are not being informed by government officials or doctors about the very short two to three year deadlines for filing a vaccine injury compensation claim for their child, so most parents don’t even know they can file a claim and often miss the filing deadline. On NVIC.org, you can read two outside consultant reports (Banyan 103 and Altarum 104 ) that have independently confirmed that federal health officials have failed to publicize the existence of a vaccine injury compensation program;

FACT: Federal officials are not transparent with the public about details of vaccine injury awards, even though this is a requirement in the law;

FACT: Many pediatricians and other vaccine providers refuse to comply with the informing, recording and reporting vaccine safety provisions in the law. In fact, pediatrician members of the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical trade industry groups are refusing to give children medical care if their parents do not get them vaccinated according to the CDC schedule.

http://www.nvic.org/nvic-vaccine-ne...governments-broken-contract-with-parents.aspx

 

[danda]

Sorry for ignoring the silly question. Yes- I get $10 million a year plus $1000 a post. How much do they pay you? Are you looking for a new employer? We can always use more help!

A sarcastic reply is not a denial.

I don't get paid anything. My only motivations are learning and spreading knowledge and promoting liberty. I find that ZippyJuan's posts are usually antithetical to these goals, promote and quote mainly establishment positions, and are so frequent that he must be either independently wealthy or gainfully employed making these posts.

While I do not advocate censorship on a liberty site, or any other, I will advocate neg repping and any other tools that site administrators can think of to hide/filter establishment shills who are trying to sway opinion and nullify the effectiveness of this forum.

Here's a simple idea for the site admin(s). Add a rating widget to each post so that users can vote on "promotes the cause of liberty", 1 = hinders. 3 = neutral, 5 = promotes. Posters can then automatically receive a score based on the average rating of their posts. Readers can set filters to automatically ignore either: posts rated below X or posts by individual with score below Y.

Rating must be anonymous, so their cannot be retaliation. Also, it is probably advisable to prevent accounts from rating unless/until they have at least 10 posts and a score over 4 themselves.

I am confident that such a mechanism would remove ZippyJuan's posts from my view, and more importantly would not allow him and others to de-rail useful threads.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

A sarcastic reply is not a denial.

I don't get paid anything. My only motivations are learning and spreading knowledge and promoting liberty. I find that ZippyJuan's posts are usually antithetical to these goals, promote and quote mainly establishment positions, and are so frequent that he must be either independently wealthy or gainfully employed making these posts.

While I do not advocate censorship on a liberty site, or any other, I will advocate neg repping and any other tools that site administrators can think of to hide/filter establishment shills who are trying to sway opinion and nullify the effectiveness of this forum.

Here's a simple idea for the site admin(s). Add a rating widget to each post so that users can vote on "promotes the cause of liberty", 1 = hinders. 3 = neutral, 5 = promotes. Posters can then automatically receive a score based on the average rating of their posts. Readers can set filters to automatically ignore either: posts rated below X or posts by individual with score below Y.

Rating must be anonymous, so their cannot be retaliation. Also, it is probably advisable to prevent accounts from rating unless/until they have at least 10 posts and a score over 4 themselves.

I am confident that such a mechanism would remove ZippyJuan's posts from my view, and more importantly would not allow him and others to de-rail useful threads.

thats a fantastic idea... zippy will have to rush off to his boss to see what he can do to prevent you from implementing this

 

[danda]

I found a possible starting point. Here is a vBulletin extension for rating threads based on one or more criteria.

http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=292796&page=2

btw, slashdot.org uses a similar rating + filtering methodology to what I proposed, and it has worked for them since the 90's.

 

[danda]

If the site admin will indicate publically that this site would consider installing such a rating and filtering extension if it is of adequate quality, then I am willing to work on and put together a prototype. There are some other technical folks here that might help out too.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

I found a possible starting point. Here is a vBulletin extension for rating threads based on one or more criteria.

http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=292796&page=2

btw, slashdot.org uses a similar rating + filtering methodology to what I proposed, and it has worked for them since the 90's.

you definitely need to start a thread on it so bryan and the rest of the users can see it and support it

 

[danda]

yeah, I was already doing that. ;-)

you definitely need to start a thread on it so bryan and the rest of the users can see it and support it

 

[Zippyjuan]

A sarcastic reply is not a denial.

I don't get paid anything. My only motivations are learning and spreading knowledge and promoting liberty. I find that ZippyJuan's posts are usually antithetical to these goals, promote and quote mainly establishment positions, and are so frequent that he must be either independently wealthy or gainfully employed making these posts.


I am confident that such a mechanism would remove ZippyJuan's posts from my view, and more importantly would not allow him and others to de-rail useful threads.

There is an "ignore" button which can block posts from people you aren't interested in. And thank you for not derailing this thread.

 

[danda]

yes that's true Zippy. And I've made use of the ignore button in the past. My concern is when tactics are consistently used that de-rail threads to such an extent that the site begins to lose focus and becomes ineffective for organizing pretty much anything. in other words, when the signal to noise ratio becomes low due to deliberate sabotage. Is that what's happening here? maybe, maybe not. but it certainly feels like it at times.

 

[angelatc]

Hey ZippyJuan, you never answered my question in the other thread about vaccines:

Do you receive any compensation for posting pro-vaccine or any other content intended to sway opinion on this forum, or any other?

It's a violation of forum rules to accuse people of being shills, especially when it is done simply in an attempt to retaliate against and bully people who have done nothing but present evidence to support their contentions.

 

[navy-vet]

[video=youtube;Rzxr9FeZf1g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=106&v=Rzxr9FeZf1g[/video]

 

[angelatc]

Yes, but you're using the same argument.. you're saying the establishment scientists have made a decision and we should all worship them and never question.

No, we are saying that the theories you put forth are unsupported by evidence.

 

[danda]

It's a violation of forum rules to accuse people of being shills, especially when it is done simply in an attempt to retaliate against and bully people who have done nothing but present evidence to support their contentions.

1) Angela, can you see a distinction between:

Jim, do you receive any compensation for any of your postings on this site?

and

Jim receives compensation for posting propaganda on this site. He is a paid shill.

2) I've never had any respect for arbitrary rules. And in an internet forum, the sensible and liberty-respecting solution is to use rating and filtering rather than rules or censorship.




So tell someone who cares.

 

[navy-vet]

No, we are saying that the theories you put forth are unsupported by evidence.

precisely...

 

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

No, we are saying that the theories you put forth are unsupported by evidence.

What, exactly, constitutes "evidence" in your mind?

 

[dannno]

This guy doesn't account for scientific fraud - and there is only about 2 seconds in the video worth of information about vaccines.

If you watch the video I posted earlier in the thread, that you quoted, you will see that scientific fraud is very widespread within government science. A good chunk of it, in fact.. It would be of very little surprise to see it in a lucrative industry like vaccines.