Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe (2016)

Andrew Wakefield (he's no longer a doctor as he was struck off for ethics violations) attempts to create a career for himself in lecture tours with this false nonsense. There have been multiple studies into MMR involving 100,000s of children since the crisis and there is no evidence of a link. Any child with autism already had it, they cannot get it from the inoculation. Anyone who doesn't vaccinate their child is a menace to society and should be charged with child neglect.

The creator of this movie, Andrew Wakefield, is not an against vaccination as such. On the contrary. He just claims that MMR vaccines on the market today are dangerous, and that there is a huge conspiracy going on.Basically, he targets the viewers emotions and fears for their children well being. And he does that well! It is devastating to see so many "must see" and "finally truth" comments to this movie.Why he does that? Well, apart from the obvious financial reasons (the revenue form the movie, sold books, lectures, conferences...), there are a few things he is not mentioning in the movie.He is an ex-doctor, a man behind the 1998 publication of a research that allegedly discovered a link between measles virus and autism, and 2001 scientific paper proposing a link between MMR vaccine and autism. It was proved many times after that, by a lot of laboratories around the world, that both links he claimed he discovered do not exist. It was also proved that Wakefield directly falsified the data in his "researches". For such deeds, he was barred from practicing medicine.But why would he do that? It was soon discovered by journalists that Wakefield's research was financed by a law firm who was preparing a lawsuit against MMR manufacturers. He personally received huge amounts of money from the same company. But furthermore, another journalist discovered that Wakefield applied for a patent for his own vaccine! What better way to make space for it on a market than to make people believe the existing ones are dangerous?In short, Wakefield did not want people to stop vaccinating their children. But he wanted them to stop trusting the existing MMR vaccine, for his own financial benefits. But all hell broke lose, and people massively stopped vaccinating their children in fear of autism. Fear and stupidity took over, and the results were quick to see. We had measles outbreak in Minnesota this year among the communities who refused to vaccinate their children. In Romania it was much worse - soon after the vaccination rate there dropped to record low 86%, the measles outbreak infected thousands and killed almost 20. Thanks to the dishonesty and greed of Andrew Wakefield, the children are again dying of diseases that were almost forgotten. Yes, that's how dangerous this kind of propaganda is.

Watch it before it is banned..Factual story about greed of some who decide for all of us. And how that greed and selfishness is put above the human live.Will definitely make you think about the big 'outbreaks' of viruses and diseases shown in daily news again...

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? :-)