In an interview on the Today show, Robert De Niro, actor and co-founder of the Tribeca Film Festival, said he regrets pulling the documentary VAXXED from the festival.
Actor Robert De Niro has recently at the center of a storm regarding the decision to remove the documentary film VAXXED: From Controversy to Catastrophe from the Tribeca Film Festival in New York. Following the Tribeca cancellation, the film was also removed by officials with the Houston International Film Festival after being contacted by officials within the Mayor’s Office.
Robert De Niro had originally been very supportive of the film before ultimately deciding to pull it from the festival, stating, “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.” De Niro also stated that there were “concerns with certain things in this film” that prevented the film from being played at the festival.
The film follows the story of a Center for Disease Control and Prevention research scientist, Dr. William Thompson. In August 2014, Thompson claimed that researchers involved in a study on the MMR vaccine “fudged numbers” to lower the number of black children who were adversely affected. Thompson is a senior scientist at the CDC and has been with the agency since 1998. On August 27, 2014 Dr. Thompson released a statement acknowledging that he and co-authors from a 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics did in fact omit important information from a study on the link between vaccines and autism.
During the Today interview De Niro seemed to reverse his previous statements and spoke openly about his questions regarding the safety of vaccinations.“I think the movie is something people should see,” De Niro said. “There is a lot of information about things that are happening with the CDC, the pharmaceutical companies. There are a lot of things that are not said. As a parent of a child who has autism I want to know the truth.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ7iPn39i08
De Niro also discussed the media blackout regarding the CDC whistleblower. “Everybody doesn’t seem to want to hear much about it. And you guys are the ones who should do the investigation,” De Niro challenged. Regarding another film about autism that is showing at Tribeca, De Niro said “it’s not questioning how some people got autism, how the vaccines are dangerous for certain people who are more susceptible. Nobody seems to want to address that, or they say it’s a closed issue but it doesn’t seem to be. There is more to this than meets the eye, believe me.”
When asked if he believes that science has shown there is no link between vaccines and autism, De Niro replied, “I believe it’s much more complicated than that. There is a link and they are saying there isn’t. The obvious one is thimerosal, a mercury based preservative. Let’s just find out the truth.” De Niro also questioned statistics that claim that parents who do not vaccinate their children will lead to a higher incidence of measles and other illnesses.
Despite the often repeated claim that VAXXED is anti-vaccination, Philippe Diaz, head of Cinema Libre, the distributor of VAXXED, says the film is not anti-vaccine but rather pro-safe vaccines. “It is not an anti-vaccination movie, people are judging the movie without seeing it first. Even Robert De Niro said the film was not anti-vaccination,” Diaz said. Indeed, De Niro has stressed that he is also not anti-vaccine and only interested in the truth. “There is something there, there is something there that people are not addressing. All I want is for people to see the film and people can make up their own judgement.”
Another interesting facet of the Today interview was a claim by Tribeca co-founder Jane Rosenthal that the sponsors of the film festival did not complain, but rather the filmmakers were upset. Despite Rosenthal’s comments, Diaz told AP that the sponsors were responsible for pressuring Tribeca to remove VAXXED.
“That’s exactly what happened. The Directors of Tribeca confirmed it to us,” Diaz said. “They had problems with sponsors. I think it created a horrible precedent, if you do not like what is in a movie, no matter the quality of the film you can pull it from a festival.”
Although VAXXED has brought Dr. William Thompson’s story to the mainstream, he originally did not want to go public with his information until it was revealed that conversations he had with Dr. Brian Hooker had been recorded. Dr. Thompson handed over thousands of pages of documents to Congressman Bill Posey’s office for review. Posey serves on the Committee on Science, Space and Technology. There was very little chatter about the CDC whistleblower for quite some time until July 29th, 2015, when Congressman Bill Posey took to the floor of the House to discuss Dr. William Thompson and his documents. The debut of VAXXED has only increased the attention on Thompson’s claims.
Another controversial aspect of the Vaccine debate is the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which eliminated any liability for pharmaceutical manufacturers, stating, “the number of recommended childhood vaccines has more than tripled and we have seen a decline in the health and vitality of our children with among the worst infant mortality rate in the developed world.”
Although pharmaceutical manufactures cannot be held liable for problems associated with vaccinations, the U.S. government does have a fund for victims of vaccines known as the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Funds awarded through the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program are first processed through a special vaccine court. In December 2014, Ben Swann examined a report by the Associated Press which revealed that thousands of families with claims with the vaccine court are left to wait for years, sometimes decades before receiving help.
The AP studied hundreds of court decisions, performed more than 100 interviews, and studied a database containing more than 14,500 cases. The database was last updated in January 2013 with the government refusing to release any new updates. Officially known as the Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the so-called vaccine court is a little-known system that is intended to address claims of Americans who believe their children have been harmed by vaccinations. The court is an established part of the federal judiciary system however the authorities over the cases are not called judges but rather “special masters.”
The AP investigation found several issues with the court. These include tens of millions of taxpayer dollars that has been paid to private attorneys who often practice “churning,” a practice described as filing a large number of claims regardless of the quality of the claims. In the private court attorneys are paid out whether or not they succeed in convincing the court. That fact has led to questionable billing practices and an increase in court claims.
The AP report also found that “expert” witnesses for the families and the government often have a lack of credibility or conflicts of interest. The report says that some of the experts are also involved in setting up nonprofits that question vaccine safety. Meanwhile, doctors hired by the government to testify in defense of vaccines have ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
For more details on this court please watch Ben Swann’s report on the Vaccine Court and Autism.
Natural and Non-Toxic Products. Up to 50% Off – Every Day (Ad)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfqpZqEP6gg
Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the Lead Investigative Reporter for ActivistPost.com and the founder of the TheConsciousResistance.com. Follow him on Twitter.
Derrick is available for interviews.
This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link.
You see some of the problems in this interview itself. First, the employees of NBC say there is “consensus” vaccines are safe. Although this may be true, they don’t talk about how consensus is achieved in any particular field. If you are an expert in the medical or drug field, you will quickly become unemployed or ostracized if you rock the boat. But it goes back further than that. Universities will not hire people who do not tow the corporate line, non-approved research will not get funding, and students who want to perform “questionable” research will not advance. Second, the same people who own pharmaceutical companies own and manage the media. Want to keep your job, your bonuses, and your ad revenue? Don’t rock the boat.
We can only hope this issue is only about money. Unfortunately we know some people in The Network also believe in depopulation. We also know vaccines have been used for evil purposes such as sterilization. We have to understand these people believe they are doing the right thing and have no problem killing or harming millions.
The next thing that will happen is that they will start to vilify Robert DeNiro and the CDC whistle-blower. Classic strategy of attacking the messenger rather than the message.
I loved DeNiro’s penicillin analogy. I’ve been using that argument for years hoping that people will see the lunacy of one-size-fits-all medicine.
What is important here to learn and realize is that not one position or office within our governments – state or federal – was ever delegated the authority to create any agency, etc with that type of authority over the American people. Nor were those that serve within our governments delegated the authority to take away the responsibility that corporations, etc has to engage in healthy for the people business practices, nor to shut out the American people from asking questions about these things and having them HONESTLY answered. BTW, nor are they delegated the authority to give themselves the “ability” to lie openly to the American people and not be held accountable for their actions.
All of this is in writing within the contracts that ALL who serve within our governments are under and agree to follow, plus are bound by Oath in order to meet the requirements of the position they occupy.
You might consider this by Michael LeMieux: “The Constitution has very little to do with the American citizen. It was written to establish a Federal Government and to place the boundaries by which that government would operate. The constitution was never designed to provide or enumerate the rights of the citizens but to restrain the federal government from meddling in state and ultimately citizen affairs.”
BTW, so are/was state Constitutions.
No it is NOT delegated within the “Elastic Clauses”. Article I, Section 8 giving Congress the power to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare” , is usually the section within the US Constitution cited as the delegated authority for such things. I is pretty clear when one reads it that it refers toi the powers already delegated and that those that serve within our government may provide what is necessary to carry out those delegated authorities found in Article 1, Section 8, all the clauses found within there.
But if one is brainwashed or corrupt enough to have doubts concerning that, the writings of those wh o wrote them are very clear as to what they meant. The clear legal meaning of the phrase which was borrowed from the Articles of Confederation, meant, and still means, a small subset of duties each individual state considered appropriate to delegate to a separate authority. Roger Sherman, early American lawyer, politician, and Founding Father of the United States, moved to have the phrase added to the Constitution, clarifies this (modernly only) misunderstood clause. so it could be connected with the clause for laying taxes and duties. Sherman wanted to make it very clear that taxes could only be collected for the enumerated powers, that the “objects of the Union” are “few”; including to list them as “defence
against foreign danger,” defense “against internal disputes & a resort to force,” and “regulating foreign commerce and drawing revenue from it” as the specified in writing powers delegated to the general (federal) government.
James Madison, the Father of the US Constitution wrote regarding the General Welfare Clause’s plain meaning when objecting to a 1792 bill which called for subsidized fisheries. The General Welfare Clause was cited as justification to pass such a bill. Madison responded: “I, sir, have always conceived – I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived, and it is still more fully known, and more material to observe that those who ratified the Constitution conceived –that this is not an indefinite Government, deriving its power from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers, but a limited Government tied down to the specified powers which explain and define the general terms.” He made it clear that the phrase
reiterated that the specified powers were tied to “general terms.”
Thomas Jefferson: “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only
those specifically enumerated.”
James Madison: “With respect to the words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a
metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
Daniel Webster: “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.
There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
St. George Tucker: “The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it – the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution. Shall the agent be permitted to judge of the extent of his own powers, without reference to his constituent (states and the people)?”
It’s about time, DeNiro.
Robert De Niro Challenges Media to Research CDC Vaccine Whistleblower
That’s funny. To do this it would require some journalistic skills. There are only a handful of genuine old school journalist and they have been covering this. The others are just bloggers.
Medical Mafia: ‘They have lies to the pharmaceutical industry’.
In plain sight, the Fix is in, ’tis all about “pro safe vaccines”, capiche, that’s how they spin, reading between the lies of autism.
ActivistPost mod: You are a goddam evil criminal for deleting my comment. You are guilty of genocide, treason, accessory to genocide and murder and more, You are an evil piece of sht that belong s at the end of a rope for lying to the people you sorry a$$ bstrd!
In the 1950s and 1960s (before the MMR vaccine was introduced), researchers noted that young children who were simultaneously exposed to 2 or more viral infections (measles, mumps, rubella or chickenpox) had a greatly increased risk of developing autism
Scientists realised that if a child who is exposed to 2 or more wild viruses at the same time is at increased risk for autism, then a child who is injected with 3 live viruses at the same time (such as the MMR vaccine) is equally at risk for autism, if not more so.
See the short video, Think Twice:
http://thinktwice.com/mmr_show.htm